I 


Columbia  ^nibersiitp 
intfjeCitpofiOieiol^orfe 


LIBRARY 


GIVEN  BY 


A   HISTORY  OF   SCOTLAND 


FROM 


THE    ROMAN    OCCUPATION 


ANDREW^   LANG 


IN    THREE    VOLUMES 
VOL.    11 


WITH    A     FRONTISPIECE 


NEW     YORK 
DODD,     MEAD,     AND     CO. 

EDINBURGH    AND    LONDON 

WILLIAM     BLACKWOOD    AND     SONS 

1902 


June   6   1S14 


Printed  by 
William  Blackwood  &  Sons,  Ediftburgh,  Scotland. 


v-L 


PREFACE. 


The  number,  variety,  complexity,  and  importance  of  the 
events  and  characters  of  the  Reformation  and  the  reign 
of  James  VI.  fill  the  present  volume.  Concerned  with  a 
period  of  less  than  a  century,  the  volume  is  based  on 
documents  far  more  numerous  than  exist  for  the  previous 
fifteen  hundred  years.  After  the  accession  of  James  VI. 
to  the  English  throne  (1603)  the  student  loses  the  invalu- 
able guidance  of  Mr  Tytler,  who  lacked,  indeed,  the  Spanish 
evidence  first  seriously  explored  by  Mr  Froude,  but  who  is 
certainly,  beyond  all  rivalry,  the  most  learned  and  impartial 
historian  of  Scotland. 

The  present  writer  has  made  use  of  the  printed  Calendars 
and  State  Papers,  and,  in  many  cases,  has  had  recourse  to  the 
original  MSS.  in  the  Record  Office  and  the  British  Museum. 
Through  the  generosity  of  Father  Pollen,  S.J.,  he  has  had 
the  advantage  of  using  Father  Stevenson's  transcripts  of  the 
Cambridge  MSS.,  for  the  most  part  once  in  the  possession 
of  the  Regent  Lennox.  These  have  been  more  copiously 
employed  by  the  author  in  his  '  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart ' 
(1901).  To  the  kindness  of  the  Earl  of  Haddington,  and 
of  Lady  Cecily  Baillie-Hamilton,  the  author  owes  his  know- 
ledge of  the  Sprot  papers  as  to  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy, — 
papers  which  he  has  edited  for,  and  presented  to,  the  Rox- 


VI  PREFACE. 

burghe  Club.  To  the  Rev.  John  Anderson,  of  the  General 
Register  House,  and  to  Mr  Gunton,  Librarian  at  Hatfield 
House,  he  is  very  greatly  indebted  for  assistance  and  ad- 
vice ;  not  less  to  Father  Pollen  ;  and  on  several  points  he 
has  had  the  advantage  of  consulting  Dr  Hay  Fleming  and 
Major  Martin  Hume.  He  must  also  express  his  thanks  to 
Mr  Maitland  Anderson  and  Mr  Smith,  of  the  University 
Library,  St  Andrews,  and  to  Miss  E.  M.  Thompson,  who 
made  many  transcripts  from  the  MS.  Records,  and  helped 
in  verifying  references.  The  portrait  of  James  VL  is  repro- 
duced by  permission  of  the  Curator  of  the  Scottish  Gallery 
of  National  Portraits,  Mr  Caw. 

The  author  must  apologise  for  any  errors  in  fact  which 
have  escaped  his  attention,  or  are  due  to  that  subconscious 
bias  from  which  no  historical  student  can  be  free.  In  his 
opinion  the  hardships  of  the  Catholics,  after  the  Reforma- 
tion, have  been  rather  cavalierly  treated  by  many  of  our 
historians,  and  he  has  therefore  dwelt  upon  a  point  too 
much  neglected.  As  Sir  Walter  Scott  observed  in  a  private 
letter,  our  sympathies — at  the  period  here  treated,  and  later 
— are  apt  always  to  be  with  the  party  which  is  out  of  power. 

A.  LANG. 


CONTENTS  OF  THE   SECOND  VOLUME. 


CHAPTER    I. 

FROM    THE    cardinal's    DEATH    TO    THE    REGENCY    OF 
MARY    OF    GUISE,     1546-1554. 


Anarchy  .... 
Arran  besieges  the  castle 
Knox  on  the  scene  . 
Early  career  of  Knox 
The  call  of  Knox     . 
The  French  take  the  castle 
Domestic  treachery 
English  invasion      .        . 


Battle  of  Pinkie 

Mary  at  Inchmahone 

French  aid  arrives  (1548) 

Mary  lands  in  France  (1548) 

Peace (1550)     . 

Martyrdom  of  Adam  Wallace 

Mary  of  Guise  to  be  Regent 

The  regency  of  Mary  of  Guise  (1554) 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE   REGENCY.       THE   MARRIAGE   OF    MARY   STUART, 
1554-1559- 


Hope  of  social  reforms    . 

23 

Popular  literature    . 

32 

The  French  unpopular    . 

24 

Godly  ballads  .... 

33 

New  men  and  Knox 

25 

Knox  recalled  to  Scotland  (1557) 

34 

Knox  in  England    . 

26 

Weak  war  with  England  {1557) 

35 

Knox  stirs  up  English  Protestants 

27 

Protestant  riots  (1557) 

36 

Knox  and  Calvin  (1555)  . 

28 

Knox's  scruples  and  "  Blast  "  . 

37 

Knox  and  Lethington  (1555)  . 

29 

The  first  godly  band  (1557) 

38 

Knox  and  Mary  of  Guise  (1556) 

30 

Mary  marries  the  Dauphin  (1558) 

39 

State  of  public  opinion    . 

31 

Mary  Stuart     .... 

40 

Vlll 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    III. 


THE   WARS   OF   THE    CONGREGATION. 


Martyrdom  of  Milne.     Discontents 

(1558)  

Protests  of  the  Congregation  (1558) 

Quentin  Kennedy    . 

The  beggars'  warning  (1559)   . 

"The  battle  approacheth "  (1559) 

Was  Mary  of  Guise  treacherous  ? 

Confusion  of  evidence 

The  wrecking  of  Perth     . 

Priests  condemned  to  die 

Conference  at  Perth 

The  Regent  garrisons  Perth 

The  ruin  of  St  Andrews  . 

Edinburgh  seized     .        . 


43 
44 
45 
46 

47 
48 

49 
5° 
SI 

52 

S3 
S4 
S6 


Proposed  marriage  of  Arran  and 
Elizabeth      .... 

Protestants  evacuate  Edinburgh 

Singular  statements  of  Knox  . 

Perfidy  of  Elizabeth 

The  open  rebellion  . 

The  wars  of  the  Congregation 

Protestant  league  with  England 
(1560)  

The  English  besiege  Leith  (1560) 

Huntly  deserts  the  Regent 

Knox's  safe  prophecy 

Death  of  Mary  of  Guise  . 

The  Treaty  of  Edinburgh  (1560) 


CHAPITER    IV. 

THE    REFORMATION    CONSUMMATED,     1560-1561. 


The  Protestants  infringe  the  treaty 

73 

Details  of  the  infringement 

74 

A  revolutionary  Convention  (1560) 

75 

Confession  of  Faith 

76 

Circular  reasoning  . 

17 

Persecuting  Acts 

78 

The  old  clergy 

79 

"  Knox's  Liturgy  "  . 

80 

Preachers,  how  appointed 

82 

Social  and  educational  reforms 

83 

Failure  of  these  hopes  (1561)  . 

84 

The  new  ethics  and  theology  . 

8=; 

Scottish  economy  in  thought  . 

86 

Knox  unchristian     . 

87 

Misery  of  the  Catholics    . 

88 

The  age  of  ruin 

Ninian  Winzet  (1562) 

Winzet  not  answered,  but  exiled 

Knox's  measure  of  success 

Arran,  Elizabeth,  and  Amy  Robsart 

(1560)  

Missions  to  Mary  and  Elizabeth 
Death  of  Francis  II.     Wooings 

Arran 

Mary  a  widow.    Lord  James  Stewart 
The  queen  of  many  wooers  (i5tit) 
A  compromise  suggested 
Declined  by  Elizabeth  (1561)  . 
Mary  leaves  France  (1561) 
Predestined  doom  of  Mary 


of 


CHAPTER    V. 

MARY    IN    SCOTLAND,     I  56 1- 1  563. 


Knox  meets  Mary   ....  105 

"  I  will  defend  the  Kirk  of  Rome"  106 

Mary's  reception      ....  107 

Sunday  amusements        .         .         .  108 

"  Excursions  and  alarums "     .         .  109 

Negotiations  with  Elizabeth  (1561) .  no 
Alliance    of    Bothwell    and    Arran 

(1562) Ill 

Madness  of  Arran    ....  112 


Lethington  visits  London 

Mary  between  Rome  and  England 

Elizabeth  will  not  meet  Mary  . 

County  family  scandals   . 

Mary  overthrows  Huntly  (October 

1562) 

Mary's  motives 

Knox's  suspicions  of  Mary 

Buchanan's  romance 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


CHAPTER    VT. 
Mary's  marriage,    1563-1565. 


Chastelard 

Lethington's    marriage    diplomacy 

(1563)  

Persecution  of  Catholics  . 
"  God  save  that  sweet  face  ! "  . 
Knox  wooes  a  young  lass 
Elizabeth    proposes    the   return    of 

Lennox         .... 
Knox  " convocates  the  lieges" 
War  of  Kirk  and  State  (1563) 
Tyranny  of  pulpiteers  (1564)    . 
Dudley  proposed  for  Mary's  hand 
Elizabeth  opposes  Lennox's  coniin 


124 


125 

126 
127 


129 
130 

131 
132 

133 
134 


Elizabeth  causes  ' '  strange  tragedies  "   135 


The  English  send  Darnley 

The  English  snare  (1565) 

Riccio  "creeps  in"  (1564) 

Uninvited  return  of  Bothwell  (1565) 

Bothwell  exiled 

Darnley  to  marry  the  Queen    . 

Darnley  braves  Elizabeth 

Charges  of  treachery 

The  Raid  of  Baith   . 

Murray  declines  to  come  to  Court 

Marv's  marriage      .        .        . 


136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 


CHAPTER    Vn. 


THE    TWO    MURDERS,     1565-1567. 


Scandal  about  Riccio  (1565) 
Mary  pursues  Murray 
Murray  retreats  to  England 
The  comedy  of  Elizabeth 
Darnley's  feud  with  Riccio 
Mary's  attitude  to  religion 
Mary's  aim  toleration  ?    . 
Massacre  or  murder? 
Secret  conspirings  (February  1566) 
Darnley's  murder  covenant  (1566) 
The  ghost  of  Douglas  treason 
The  slaying  of  Riccio 
Parliament  dismissed 
Mary  recovers  power 
Isolation  of  Darnley         .         , 


149 

150 


154 
15s 
156 
157 
158 

159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 


Birth  of  James  VL  (1566) 
Darnley  threatens  Murray 
Bothwell  and  Darnley 
Band  against  Darnley  (October  1566) 
Mary  visits  Bothwell  at  Hermitage 
Mary's  illness  at  Jedburgh 
The  Craigmillar  conference 
Darnley :  plot  and  counterplot 
The  affair  of  Hiegait  (1566-1567) 
Mary   brings   Darnley    to    Kirk-o' 

Field  (1567). 
Murray  secures  his  alibi  . 
Death  of  Darnley  (Feb.  10,  1567) 
"Jesu  !    Paris,  how  begrimed   you 

are  1 " 


165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 

174 

i/S 
176 

177 


CHAPTER    MIL 


THE    PRISONS    OF    MARY    STUART,     1 567- T  568. 


Mary  suspected  ....  181 
Murray  retires  to  France  .  .182 
"Ainslie's  band"  (April  19,  1567)  .  183 
Bothwell  abducts  Mary  .  .  .184 
The  fall  of  Mary  .  .  .  .185 
Mary  marries  Bothwell  (May  15, 
1567) 186 


Mary  surrenders  at  Carberry  . 

Treachery  of  Lethington 

' '  The  facts  are  only  too  well  proved ' 

The  casket  is  seized 

Mary  signs  her  abdication 

Throckmorton  saves  Mary 

Character  of  Murray 


187 


190 
191 
192 
193 


CONTENTS. 


Murray  Regent.     Bothvvell  in  Den 

mark    ..... 
Murray's  party  disunited  (1568) 
Mary  escapes  from  Lochleven 
Mary  defeated  at  Langside 
Elizabeth's  diplomacy 
Mary  is  deceived 
Rival  duplicity  of  Mary   . 
Mary  denies  the  casket  letters 


194 

195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 


The  letters  shown  at  York       .  ,  202 

Subtleties  of  Lethington  .        .  .  203 

Negotiations  (November  1568)  .  204 

Murray  produces  his  charges  .  .  205 

Weakness  of  Mary's  commissioners  206 

The  "  Articles  "  against  Mary  .  207 

Examination  of  the  casket  letters  .  208 

The  inquiry  huddled  up  .        .  .  209 


CHAPTER    IX. 

REGENCIES    OF    MURRAY    AND    LENNOX,     1568  1572. 


Maiy  is  threatened  ....     213 

Civil  war  imminent  (1569)         .         .     214 
Murray  intrigues  with  Norfolk  (1569)    215 
Murray  in  spring  1569     .         .         .     216 
Schemes  for  Mary's  release      .         .     217 
Norfolk  a  suitor  of  Mary  .         .     218 

Murray  deserts  Norfolk  .         .         .     219 
Murray's  party  reject  Mary's  pro- 
posals ......     220 

Crawford  impeaches  Lethington      .     221 
Lethington's  sin  against  Mary  .     222 

Lethington  true  to  Norfolk 
The  rebellion  of  the  North  (1569)    . 
Murray  tries  to  get   possession   of 
Mary  (1570)  .... 

Vengeance  overtakes  Murray  . 
Murray's  funeral      .... 

Randolph  works  for  civil  war  . 


223 
224 


226 
227 
228 


"  The  Douglas  wars "      .         .         ,  229 

Sussex  and  Lethington    .         .         .  230 

The  mystery  of  Lethington      .         .  231 

The  treaty  of  Chatsworth  .  .  232 
Knox   preaches   against   Kirkcaldy 

(December  1570)  .         .         .  233 

The  Ridolphi  plot  (1571)  .         .  234 

Mary  loses  Dumbarton    .        .         .  235 

New  actors      .....  236 

Murder  of  Lennox  ....  237 

Morton  and  Archibald  Douglas       .  238 

Failure  of  Ridolphi's  plot         .         .  239 

Mar  Regent.     Siege  of  the  castle    .  240 

Tulchan  bishops  (1572)    .         .         .  241 

Intrigue  to  hand  over  Mary  (1572)  .  242 
Death  of  Mar.     Failure  of  intrigue 

{1.572) 243 


CHAPTER    X. 


REGENCY    OF    MORTON,     15  7  2-1577-T  581. 


Death  of  Knox  (Nov.  24,  1572) 
Pacification  of  Perth  (Feb.  1573) 
The  castle  surrenders  to  England 
Death  of  Kirkcaldy  and  Lethington 
Condition  of  the  country 
State  of  the  Kirk     . 
Morton's  corruption 
The  General  Assembly    . 
Mongrel  Episcopacy 
Andrew  Melville  to  the  rescue 
Raid  of  the  Reidswire  (1575)    . 
Strong  rule  of  Morton 
He  inclines  to  Mary  (1576-77) 
Argyll  works  against  Morton  (1578) 


247 
248 
249 
250 

251 
252 

253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 

259 
260 


Fall  and  recovery  of  Morton  .  .261 
Mary's  new  intrigue  (1578)  .  .  262 
Death  of  AthoU  (1579)  .  .  .  263 
The  Hamiltons  exiled  .  .  .  264 
.Arrival  of  Stewart  d'Aubigny  .  .  265 
Intrigues  of  d'Aubigny  (1579-1580) .  266 
D'Aubigny  (Lennox)  secures  Dum- 
barton    267 

Elizabeth  deserts  Morton  (1580)       .  268 

Arrest  of  Morton  (Dec.  31,  1580)     .  269 

Plots  and  forgeries  (1581)        .         .  270 
Trial  of  Morton       .         .         .         .271 

Execution  of  Morton  (1581)     .         .  272 


CONTENTS. 


XI 


CHAPTER    XL 


KING   AND    KIRK,    1581-1584. 


Morton  and  the  Kirk 

.     276 

Claims  of  the  Kirk  . 

•     277 

James  a  Protestant  , 

.     278 

Mary's  intrigues  (1581)    . 

•     279 

Cross  intrigues  by  Jesuits 

.     280 

Lennox's  vain  hopes  (1582) 

.     281 

Jesuit  blunders 

.     282 

A  national  covenant 

.     283 

A  band  against  Lennox  (1582^ 

.     284 

The  Raid  of  Ruthven  (1582) 

.     28s 

An  English  murder  plot  . 

.     286 

James  and  Lennox  . 

.     287 

The  raiders  play  for  safety 

.     288 

Lennox  leaves  Scotland  .        . 
Death  of  Lennox  (1583)  . 
James  deserts  his  mother 
James  shakes  off  the  raiders    . 
James  a  free  king     . 
James's  letter  to  Guise     . 
Throckmorton's  plot 
James  writes  to  the  Pope  (1584) 
Plot  and  execution  of  Gowrie  . 
Flight  of  the  preachers    . 
The  Kirk  overthrown  (1584)    . 
"The  Black  Acts". 


289 
290 

291 
292 

293 
294 

29s 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 


CHAPTER  XH. 

THE  END  OF  MARY  STUART.   THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  THE 
MASTER  OF  GRAY.   I  5 84- 1  587. 


Cecil    schemes    to    separate  James 

from  Mary  .....  304 

"  Graius  an  Paris  ?  "         .         .         .  305 

"What  has  your  house  done?"       .  306 

Perfidy  of  James      ....  307 
The   castle    plot    and    the    Border 

meeting 308 

Latin  and  Greek  of  Arran        .         .  309 
The  Master  will  betray  Mary  .         .310 

Mary  and  the  Master       ,         .         •  311 

English  intrigues  against  Arran  (1585)  313 

The  exiles  let  slip    ....  314 

All  the  exiles  return  (1585)       .         .  315 

Raid  of  Stirling.    Fall  of  Arran  (1585)  316 


Disappointment  of  the  Kirk    .         . 
Fall  of  Adamson  (1586)   . 
Walsingham  entraps  Mary  (1586)   . 
James  receives  Archibald  Douglas  . 
League  with  England 
Mary  condemned  to  die  . 
James  desires  her  strict  confinement 
Honesty  of  the  Master     . 
Embassy  of  the  Master  (1587) 
Error  of  Mr  Froude 
Honesty  of  the  Master     . 
Proof  from  Logan  of  Restalrig 
The  preachers  and  Mary  (1587) 
Death  of  Mary  (1587) 


317 
318 
319 


321 
322 
323 
324 
32s 
326 

327 
328 

329 
330 


CHAPTER    Xni. 


THE    KING   OF    MANY    ENEMIES,    1587-1593. 


After  Mary's  death  . 

Dilemma  of  Elizabeth 

The  Master  suffers  for  his  religion 

Parliament  of  1587  . 

The  case  of  Habakkuk    . 

Condition  of  the  country 


•     334 

The  Armada  (1588)          .         .         .     340 

•     335 

Death  of  Angus       ....     341 

•     33*5 

"  Fiddler's  wages "  .         .         .         .     342 

•     337 

Scottish  Catholics  and  Spain  (1589)     343 

•     338 

The  king  "  weary  of  life  "        .         .     344 

•     339 

The  king  pursues  his  rebels     .         .     345 

xn 


CONTENTS. 


Courage  of  James    . 

The  king's  marriage 

The  king  seeks  his  bride 

The  king's  return  (1590) 

Elizabeth  on  Puritans 

Witchcraft 

Beginning     of     Bothwell 

(1591)  .         .         . 
Preachers  claim  jurisdiction 
Bothwell  attacks  Holyrood 
"  The  great  band  "  . 


•   346 

•     347 

•     348 

•     349 

•     350 

•     35^ 

troubles 

•     353 

•     354 

•         •     355    1 

.         •     356    1 

Murder  of  the  bonny  Earl  (1592) 

Maitland  driven  from  office 

Bothvvell's  apology  . 

The  Kirk  secures  her  charter  (159: 

"The  Laird  of  Wanton  Logie" 

Danger  of  the  king  . 

The  Spanish  Blanks  (1593) 

Elizabeth  abets  Bothwell 

The  king's  notes  as  to  Spain 

Protestant  anxiety   . 

Bothwell  captures  the  king  (1593) 


357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
365 
366 

367 
368 


CHAPTER    XIV. 


INTRIGUES    OF    SPAIN,    ENGLAND,    AND    BOTHWELL,     I593-I595- 


Bothwell  and  Colville  trap  the  king 

(1593)  

Terms  of  Bothwell  .... 
Bothwell  acquitted  of  witchcraft 
Strange  intrigue  of  Elizabeth  . 
James  escapes  from  Bothwell  . 
Impossibility  of  religious  toleration 
Morals  of  the  age     .... 
Presbyterian         excommunications 

(1593) 

Alliance  of  Bothw^ell  and  Gowrie 
James  prevents  a  battle  royal  . 
The  godly  plot  to  trap  the  king  ( 1593)   382 
Vain  attempt  at  compromise  (1594) 
Prince  Henry  born,  and  threatened 


Bothwell's  raid.     Gowrie  retires  to 

372 

Padua  ...... 

385 

373 

A  menacing  preacher 

386 

374 

Kirk  and  king          .... 

387 

375 

Huntly  receives  foreign  gold  (1595) 

388 

376 

Casuistry  of  Bothwell 

389 

377 

Colville  deserts  Bothwell 

390 

378 

Bothwell  turns  Catholic  . 

391 

Battle  of  Glenrinnes 

392 

379 

The  king  scatters  the  rebels     . 

393 

380 

Argyll  imprisoned  (1595) 

394 

381 

Exile  of  Huntly  and  Bothwell  (1595) 

395 

382 

Death  of  Maitland  .... 

396 

383 

The  troubles  with  Mr  Black    . 

397 

384 

Financial  reform      .... 

398 

CHAPTER    XV. 


THE    KING    CONQUERS    THE    PREACHERS,     1596- 1 597. 


The  Octavians  (1596) 

The  mystery  of  Pourie     . 

Outpouring  of  grace 

Bochim    ..... 

"  Here  end  all  sincere  Assemblies  " 

Kinmont  Willie  (1596)     . 

Cecil  and  Pourie 

Forgeries  of  Pourie 

Huntly  returns 

Insolence  of  Andrew  Melville  . 

War  of  Kirk  and  king 

Declinature  of  jurisdiction 


402 

403 
404 

405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 


The  prophets  to  be  judges 

The  prophets  banished  Edinburgh 

The  king  truckles    . 

Riot  of  December  17  (1596) 

Maclean  in  the  tumult 

James  terrifies  the  burgesses    . 

Mr  Bruce  appeals  to  Hamilton 

"  Of  all  fools  the  worst " . 

James  re-enters  Edinburgh  (January 

I,  1597)        .... 
Death  of  Arran 


414 

415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
48 1 

422 
423 


CONTENTS. 


xm 


CHAPTER    XVI. 


JAMES   ON    ILL   TERMS   WITH    ENGLAND,     1597   1600. 


Toleration  and  democracy       .  .     426 

VictcB  causes 427 

The  Synod  of  Fife   .         .         .  .428 

Assembly  of  Perth  (1597)         .  .     429 

Submission  of  Huntly  and  Errol  .     430 

Witch-burnings       .         .         .  -431 

Episcopacy  restored  (1598)      .  .     433 

Irish  complications  (1598)        .  .     434 


Celts  refuse  rent       ....  435 

Bad  terms  with  England  (1598)  .  436 

Death  of  Lachlan  Maclean  (1598)  .  437 

The  judges  defy  the  king  {1599)  .  438 

"  A  hair  in  the  king's  neck"    .  .  439 

The  doubtful  letter  to  the  Pope  .  440 

Preachers  and  plaj^-actors       .  »  441 


CHAPTER    XVII. 


THE   GOWRIE    CONSPIRACY,    160O. 


GowTie's  religion 

444 

Ramsay  to  the  rescue 

.    456 

An  useful  Scot 

445 

Death  of  Gowrie 

.     457 

Gowrie  at  Court 

446 

The  king  returns  to  Falkland  . 

.     458 

The  convention  on  finance 

447 

Evidence  of  Craigingelt  . 

•     459 

Conspiracies  of  Colville  (1598) 

448 

Henderson  vanishes 

.     460 

Gowrie  in  August    . 

449 

Henderson  turns  king's  evidence 

.     461 

The  evidence  .... 

450 

Henderson  in  the  plot?    . 

.     462 

Andrew  Henderson 

451 

Evidence  of  Oliphant 

•     463 

The  pot  of  gold 

452 

Restalrig          .... 

•     464 

The  turret        .... 

453 

Affairs  of  the  Kirk  . 

•     465 

The  king  said  to  have  ridden  away 

454 

Position  of  the  preachers 

.     466 

The  king  cries  "  Treason  ! "    . 

•    455 

Scotland  still  anarchic     . 

•     467 

CHAPTER    XVIII. 


JAMES    SUCCEEDS    TO    ELIZABETH,     160I-161O. 


James  and  Essex  (1600-1601) 
Cecil  intrigues  with  James 
The  holiday  of  August  5 
Trouble  with  Mr  Bruce  (1602) 
Better  relations  with  England . 
More  of  Mr  Bruce  . 
James  King  of  England  (1603) 
James's  religion 
Governs  Scotland  by  the  pen 
Hampton  Court  Conference  (1604) . 
The  Assembly  of  Aberdeen  (1605)  . 
Declared  seditious  .  .  .  , 
The  golden  Act        .         .         .         , 


471 
472 

473 
474 
475 
476 

477 
478 

479 


483 


"  No  bishops  !"       . 
Trial  of  the  preachers  (1605)    . 
Threat  and  counter-threat 
Alarm  of  the  Council  (1606)     . 
Cadmeian  victories  . 
Strife  of  nobles  and  bishops  (1606) 
'File  Melvilles  maltreated 
Abuse  of  prerogative 
Linlithgow  convention  (1606)  . 
Oppression  of  the  ministers  (1608) 
Persecution  of  Catholics  . 
Success  of  the  persecution 
Letter  of  Ogilvie  of  Pourie 


484 

485 
486 
487 


490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 


XIV 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

THE    LAST    YEARS    OF    JAMES    VI.,     1603-1624. 


Abortive  scheme  of  Union 

500 

"A  mere  hotch-potch  "    . 

•     5" 

Ths  Posi-nafi  {1608) 

SOI 

The  king  visits  Scotland  (1617 

.     512 

Fall  of  Balmerino     . 

£02 

Innovations  in  worship    . 

•    513 

Confessions  of  Balmerino 

503 

Calderwood  in  trouble     . 

•     514 

Consecration  of  bishops  (i6ro) 

504 

The  Articles  of  Perth  (1618) 

•     515 

Reforms  of  administration 

505 

Black  Saturday  (1621) 

.     S16 

Persecution  of  Catholics  (16 13) 

506 

Sermons  under  censure    . 

•     517 

Martyrdom  of  Father  Ogilvie  (1614 

Death  of  James  (1625) 

.     518 

1615)    

507 

James  sowed  the  wind     . 

.     519 

Jesuits  and  saints     . 

509 

Character  of  James . 

.    520 

General  Assembly  (1616) 

510 

CHAPTER    XX. 


HIGHLANDS    AND    BORDERS,     1603-161O. 


fiorder  commissioners  (1605) 
Lord  Maxwell  executed 
The  Highlands 
Company  of  the  Lewes 
Celtic  feuds 
The  Macgregors 
The  nameless  clan 
Band  of  Icolmkill 
Lochiel    .         . 


523 

524 
525 
526 

527 
528 

529 
530 
531 


Glen  Nevis  Camerons      .         . 
Macneils  and  Macleans  . 
Escape  of  Dunluce  . 
Argyll  recovers  Kintyre  and  Isla 
Quieting  of  the  Highlands 
Orkney    ..... 
Execution   of  the   Earl  of  Orkney 
(1615) 


532 

533 
534 
535 
536 
537 

538 


CHAPTER    XXI. 


SOCIAL    CONDITIONS. 


Feuds      

542 

Scots  abroad    .        , 

552 

The  Auchendrane  murders 

543 

Mines  and  mint 

553 

Capture  of  Auchendrane 

544 

The  leather  trade     . 

554 

Sympathy  with  criminals 

545 

Imports  and  exports 

555 

A  Logan  malefactor 

546 

Kindly  tenants 

556 

A  minister's  feud 

547 

A  lady's  day    . 

557 

The  Kirk  and  morality    . 

548 

Books  and  booksellers 

558 

Witchcraft       .... 

549 

St  Andrews  University 

559 

Lent 

550 

Godscroft  on  Mary . 

561 

Plague 

551 

APPENDIX. 

A.  The  Casket  Letters    .... 

B.  Logan  of  Restalrig  and  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy 


563 
569 


A    HISTORY    OF    SCOTLAND   FROM   THE 
ROMAN    OCCUPATION. 


CHAPTER    I. 

FROM    THE    cardinal's    DEATH    TO    THE    REGENCY    OF 
MARY    OF    GUISE. 

1546-1554- 

The  first  volume  of  this  History  ended  when  the  great  Cardinal 
Beaton  died,  butchered  in  his  Castle  of  St  Andrews.  He  fell  in  the 
hour  of  apparent  victory :  he  had  successfully  resisted  the  feudal 
claims  made  by  Henry  VHI.  to  sovereignty  over  Scotland.  In  that 
resistance  he  had  shone  as  a  patriot,  but  he  had  also  opposed,  and 
to  some  extent  dominated,  the  Scottish  tendency  towards  Protest- 
antism. As  a  friend  of  national  independence,  he  had,  no  doubt, 
been  chiefly  animated  by  attachment  to  the  interests  of  his  Church, 
and  that  Church,  partly  by  her  corruptions,  partly  by  the  weakness 
which  had  made  her  the  victim  of  the  great  Houses,  was,  in  Scot- 
land, doomed.  For  the  next  three  years  resistance  to  the  English 
feudal  claims  to  sovereignty  over  Scotland  was  to  be  maintained  by 
a  woman,  by  a  priest,  and  by  Arran,  the  wavering  Governor. 
Henry  VHI.  was  not  long  to  outlive  his  murdered  ojiponcnt,  but 
Henry's  contradictory  aims,  first  to  prove  that  the  Scottish  crown 
was  his  own,  worn  by  "  pretensed  kings,"  next,  to  win  the  hand  of 
the  child,  the  "  pretensed  queen,"  for  his  son,  were  to  be  pursued 
by  that  scourge  of  Scotland,   Hertford,  under  his  new  title  of  the 

VOL.    II.  A 


2  ANARCHY. 

Protector  Somerset.^  Everything  combined  to  make  the  Scottish  ' 
resistance  difficult.  Thus  the  two  Douglases,  Angus  and  Sir 
George,  displayed  a  double  treachery  so  vacillating  and  profitless 
that  it  seemed  rather  the  result  of  ingrained  habit  than  of  settled 
policy.  The  nobles  would  on  one  day  defy  England,  and  renounce 
all  their  engagements  with  her,  and  on  the  next  would  secretly 
renew  their  treasonable  "  bands."  For  a  little  money,  Argyll — for 
weariness  of  his  English  captivity,  Huntly  —  would  abandon  the 
patriotic  attitude,  only  to  assume  it  again  on  fair  occasion.  The 
residence  of  English  garrisons,  with  their  vernacular  Bibles,  at 
Dundee  and  on  the  Border,  may  have  encouraged  a  genuine  evan- 
gelical belief  among  the  populace ;  among  the  gentry  the  same 
causes  bred  a  hypocrisy  which  sickened  even  a  Scottish  spy. 
In  a  convention  of  the  nobles  at  Stirling,  within  ten  days  after 
the  Cardinal's  murder,  complaints  of  anarchy  were  heard.  The 
rent-collectors  of  ecclesiastical  landlords  were  being  mobbed,  and 
compelled  to  eat  their  summonses.  Crowds  of  tenants  were 
collecting  to  resist  evictions  by  lay  landlords.  Arran  was  later 
pelted  with  stones  by  the  women  of  Edinburgh,  and  driven  to  take 
refuge  in  St  Giles'  church. - 

The  first  object  of  the  Government,  after  the  Cardinal's  death, 
was  to  bring  the  murderers  to  trial,  and  to  rescue  St  Andrews  Castle, 
now  a  Scottish  Gibraltar  at  English  service.  Knox  illustrates  the 
slender  hold  of  law  on  Scottish  minds  by  representing  the  action  of 
Government  as  a  mere  piece  of  priestly  and  feminine  vindictiveness. 
The  Cardinal's  death  was  "  most  dolorous  to  the  Queen-Dowager, 
for  in  him  perished  faithfulness  to  France,  and  the  comfort  to  all 
gentlewomen,  and  especially  to  wanton  widows.  His  death  must  be 
revenged."  ^  By  "  wanton  widows "  the  Reformer  means  us  to 
understand  Mary  of  Guise,  the  queen-mother.  What  part  would 
the  Douglases  take  in  the  "  revenge  "  of  the  man  they  had  lately 
schemed  (according  to  a  report  given  by  Knox)  to  destroy  ?  Influ- 
enced, says  the  Reformer,  by  a  desire  to  secure  Beaton's  rich  abbey 
of  Arbroath  for  Angus's  bastard,  George,  they  came  to  Court,  and 
were  the  first  to  vote  for  the  siege  of  the  castle.  The  bastard, 
George  Douglas,  received  the  abbey,  but  had  an  uncertain  tenure. 
Later  he  was  concerned  in  the  murder  of  Riccio,  and  in  1574  he 
became  Bishop  of  Moray.*  At  the  Convention  in  Stirling  (June 
2-1 1)  the  Douglases  and  other  nobles  renounced  their  bands  with 
England,  and  the  "  godly  purpose  of  marriage  "  between  Mary  and 
Edward  VI.     Arran    nominally    abandoned    his    claims   to    Mary's 


ARRAN   BESIEGES   THE   CASTLE.  3 

hand  for  his  son  :  hope,  perhaps,  he  did  not  abandon.  Twenty 
peers  were  chosen  to  form  a  monthly  series  of  Councils  of  Four. 
Huntly  accepted  the  Chancellorship,  a  "  glorious  young  man,"  and 
a  rival  of  Argyll.  It  was  proclaimed  that  none  should  aid  and  abet 
the  murderers  in  the  castle.  Wrecking  of  ecclesiastical  property  and 
buildings  was  denounced.^  On  July  i  Parliament  met,  and  sum- 
monses for  treason  were  urged,  but  later  dropped,  against  Brunston 
and  Macleod,  who  may  have  been  intriguing  with  England.  It  was 
shown  later  that  the  "  Castilians,"  the  murderers  in  the  castle,  had 
failed  to  obey  a  summons  for  treason.  Taxes  were  raised  for  the 
expenses  of  the  siege  of  St  Andrews  Castle,  which  was  to  be  pros- 
ecuted in  turn  by  the  forces  of  the  kingdom  arrayed  in  four 
territorial  divisions.  Henry  VIII.  was  urged  not  to  abet  the 
murderers.  Scotland  desired  to  be  included  in  the  peace  ol  Ardres 
(June  7)  negotiated  between  France  and  England.^  This  inclusion 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  granted  by  Henry.'^ 

Henry,  in  fact,  was  intriguing  with  the  murderers.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  siege  in  September  he  promised  help,  on  the  usual 
conditions,  to  the  Castilians,  as  they  were  called.  By  October  he 
was  sending  William  Tyrrell,  with  six  ships,  to  the  relief  of  the 
hold.^  In  November  the  besieged  sent  to  Henry  an  account  of 
their  situation.  The  Government  despatched  to  England  Banter, 
Bishop  of  Ross,  and  Adam  Otterburn.  The  garrison  sent  Balnaves 
and  John  Leslie.  The  French  Ambassador  suspected  the  Arch- 
bishop of  St  Andrews  and  the  Bishop  of  Ross  of  inclining  to  heresy.^ 
On  December  20,  Henry,  observing  that  the  Castilians  were  being 
persecuted  undeservedly,  "  straitly  put  at  without  desert,"  bade 
Arran  abandon  the  siege.  The  Castilians,  he  said,  were  ready  to 
forward  the  marriage  of  Mary  with  his  son.  While  the  whole  force 
of  Scotland  was  camped  round  Beaton's  castle  on  the  cliff  above  the 
Northern  Sea,  and  was  vainly  battering  walls  and  towers,  or  block- 
houses, too  strong  for  the  weak  and  ill-served  artillery,  Arran  was 
constantly  present  at  the  leaguer  from  September  19  to  December 
17.  The  Government  was  still  pleading  with  Henry  VIII.  for  the 
inclusion  of  Scotland  in  the  peace  with  France,  and  apparently 
they  pleaded  in  vain.^*^  On  November  26  Arran  applied  for  aid  to 
France ;  she  was  invited  to  insist,  with  threats  of  war,  on  the 
Scottish  inclusion  in  the  peace,  and  to  send  guns,  engineers,  and 
money.     An  English  invasion  was  expected  in  February.^^ 

Presently  Arran  discovered,  or  was  deluded  into  a  belief  in,  the 
futility  of  his  attempts  at  a  siege.      For  some  reason,  probably  for 


4  KNOX   ON   THE   SCENE. 

lack  of  ships,  the  sea  la}'  open  to  the  English  provisioning  vessels. 
The  Scottish  artillery  from  no  point  could  command  the  castle, 
then  of  much  greater  extent  eastwards  than  could  be  guessed  from 
the  existing  ruins.  On  December  17,  an  armistice  or  "appoint- 
ment "  was  arranged — Knox  says  treacherously,  and  accuses  the 
Laird  of  Mountquhanie,  Sir  Michael  Balfour,  father  of  the  later 
notorious  Sir  James.^^  In  point  of  fact,  provisions  were  failing  the 
garrison,  hence  their  acceptance  of  a  truce.  The  Castilians  prom- 
ised to  hand  over  the  castle  as  soon  as  a  papal  remission  for  the 
murder  arrived.  Till  then  they  were  to  keep  the  hold,  with  Arran's 
son  as  hostage.  Knox  says  that  Arran's  party  did  not  mean  to 
keep  these  articles.^^  Certainly  the  Castilians  had  no  mind  to  keep 
their  own  word,  and  to  hand  over  their  fortress,  as  they  frankly 
told  Henry.  They  only  wanted  time  to  revictual  the  castle,  and, 
with  singular  cynicism,  asked  Henry  to  move  the  Emperor  to  inter- 
cede with  the  Pope  "  for  the  stopping  and  hindering  of  their 
absolution." 

The  truce  rejoiced  "  the  godly,"  who  had  been  comforted  by  the 
presence  of  the  preacher,  John  Rough.  During  Arran's  Protest- 
ant fit  (1542-43)  Rough  was  chaplain  to  that  nobleman.  He  was 
"  not  of  the  most  learned,"  Knox  says,  but  his  doctrine  was 
"  well  liked  of  the  people."  They  were  soon  to  be  reinforced  by 
a  yet  more  popular  master  of  pulpit  oratory,  Knox  himself  By 
betaking  himself,  with  his  pupils,  to  the  castle  (about  April  10, 
1547),  Knox  may  have  avoided  the  prosecution  by  the  Archbishop 
of  St  Andrews,  but  he  also  definitely  chose  his  part  in  the  religious 
revolution. 

A  few  sentences  may  here  be  devoted  to  the  obscure  previous 
career  of  a  man  who  henceforward  lives  in  the  intensest  light  of 
history.  Concerning  his  birth,  family,  and  all  his  life  till  1546 
Knox  says  nothing.  We  know,  however,  that  he  was  born  in  1505, 
probably  in  the  parish  of  Morham,  near  Haddington.  From  an 
account  which  .Knox  gives  of  his  conversation  with  Bothwell  in 
1562,  it  appears  that  both  of  his  grandfathers  and  his  father  "have 
served  your  lordship's  predecessors,  and  some  of  them  have  died 
under  their  standards,"  the  flag  of  the  unruly  Hepburns.  Knox's 
ancestors  were  probably  small  farmers,  like  the  ancestors  of  Burns 
and  of  many  notable  Scots.  His  parents  educated  him  for  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Church.  He  was  almost  certainly  trained  at  Hadding- 
ton grammar-school,  receiving  "  the  elements  of  religious  education 


EARLY   CAREER   OF   KNOX.  5 

from  his  bulk  and  prymar,  and  of  Latin  grammar  from  his 
Donatus,"  before  proceeding  to  higher  studies.  In  his  seventeenth 
year  he  went  up  to  the  University  of  Glasgow,  probably  because 
Major,  a  Haddington  man,  was  Principal.  He  did  not  take  his 
Master's  degree,  and  it  is  probable  that  at  Glasgow  he  did  not 
study  for  more  than  a  year  or  eighteen  months.  His  Greek  and 
Hebrew  were  later  acquired.  From  1523,  or  thereabouts,  till  1540 
nothing  is  known  about  Knox.  Documents  of  1 540-1 543  prove 
that  he  was  "Sir  John  Knox"  (one  of  "the  Pope's  Knights"),  and 
was  acting  as  "  minister  of  the  holy  altar,"  and  as  notary  by 
apostolic  authority.^*  He  was  also  engaged  in  tuition  at  Samuels- 
ton,  near  Haddington,  and  probably  "  combined  the  duties  of 
chaplain  and  of  instructor  of  youth."  ^^  We  hear  no  more  of  Knox 
till  December  1545  and  January  1546,  when  he  acted  as  body- 
guard to  George  Wishart.  Whether  this  was  the  date  of  his  first 
acquaintance  with  Wishart,  or  whether  he  had  met  him  in  Brun- 
ston's  society  earlier,  we  are  not  informed.  Wishart's  teaching  fell 
in  fruitful  ground  already  prepared,  as  Knox  had  been  for  some  time 
associated  with  Lothian  lairds,  who  were  "  earnest  professors  of 
Christ  Jesus."  After  Wishart's  death  Knox  was  sought  for  by 
the  new  x\rchbishop  of  St  Andrews  ("not  yet  desecrated" — i.e., 
consecrated),  and  he  had  thoughts  of  seeking  safety  in  Germany. 
At  this  period  his  ideas,  like  those  of  Wishart,  were  Lutheran 
rather  than  Calvinistic  :  he  was  not  an  enemy  of  the  order  of 
Bishops,  though  no  believer  in  Apostolic  Succession.  We  shall  see 
later  that  he  only  refused  an  English  bishopric  because  of  his  "fore- 
sight of  evils  to  come "  under  Mary  Tudor.  Knox's  ideas  of  the 
obedience  owed  by  subjects  to  kings  were  also  at  this  time  in 
accordance  with  Luther's  teaching ;  he  adopted  later  the  revolu- 
tionary doctrine  of  Calvin. ^^ 

In  place  of  fleeing  to  Germany,  Knox  was  moved  by  the  Prot- 
estant parents  of  his  pupils  to  seek  refuge  in  the  Castle  of  St 
Andrews.  He  "lap  into  the  castle"  at  Easter  (April  10)  1547, 
during  the  truce.  The  pardon  from  Rome  appears  to  have 
arrived  rather  earlier.  Meanwhile  the  castle  and  town  held  open 
intercourse.  The  company  of  assassins  displayed,  as  Mr  Hume 
Brown  says,  a  "  strange  commixture  of  unbridled  vice  and  earnest 
religious  feeling,"  a  phenomenon  familiar  among  the  banditti  of 
Italy.  "^//  those  of  the  castle  .  .  .  openly  professed,  by  participa- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Table,  in  the  same  purity  that  it  is  now  adminis- 


6  THE   CALL   OF   KNOX. 

tered  in  the  churches  of  Scotland."  ^"^  The  ceremony  called  "  fencing 
the  tables  "  must  have  been  omitted,  for,  as  Keith  says,  the  "  Cas- 
tilians  ran  into  all  the  vices  which  idle  persons  are  subject  to.  .  .  . 
Whoredoms,  adulteries,  and  depredations  with  fire  and  sword "  are 
included.  This  "  corrupt  life,"  as  Knox  calls  it,  was  not  abated  by 
the  sermons  which  he  presently  began  to  preach.  He  had  already 
catechised  his  pupils — "  he  read  unto  them  a  catechism  " — in  the 
parish  church  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  in  South  Street.  He  also  lec- 
tured on  the  Gospel  of  St  John  in  the  chapel  of  the  castle.  He 
was  presently  called  on  by  John  Rough,  hitherto  the  chaplain  of 
the  unruly  castle  congregation,  to  take  on  himself  the  ofifice  of 
preacher.  He  wept,  under  a  sense  of  the  solemnity  of  the  occasion, 
his  "only  consecration  to  his  office,"  Next  Sunday,  preaching 
before  the  University,  he  "  identified  the  Church  of  Rome  with  the 
Man  of  Sin,  with  Antichrist,  and  the  Whore  of  Babylon."  His 
authority  was  the  seventh  chapter  of  Daniel  and  "  the  New  Testa- 
ment." The  Archbishop  bade  Wynram,  the  sub-prior,  interfere ; 
but  Wynram  (the  Vicar  of  Bray  of  Scotland)  merely  disputed  feebly 
with  Knox,  while  a  Franciscan  friar  collapsed  under  the  logic  and 
eloquence  of  the  Reformer.  Henceforth  he  preached  effectually  on 
week-days,  the  parish  pulpit  being  occupied  by  "  Baal's  shaven  sort" 
on  Sundays.  But  Knox's  preaching  cannot  have  lasted  for  more 
than  a  month  or  two. 

During  the  truce  Henry  VHI.  had  died  (January  28,  1547),  and 
Francis  H.  had  followed  his  old  rival  (March  31,  1547).  On  the 
coronation  of  Henry  II.,  d'Osel,  or  d'Oysel,  was  sent  to  Scotland ; 
he  was  a  secretis  inulierum,  says  Knox — another  stroke  at  Mary  of 
Guise.  In  England  the  Protector,  Somerset,  was  still  intriguing 
with  Balnaves,  who  was  to  bring  over  the  Scottish  nobles  to  the 
English  marriage  of  Mary.  On  March  11,  at  St  Andrews,  the  fickle 
Lord  Gray  came  into  the  project. ^^  What  Gray  wanted  was  the 
command  of  Perth,  which  he  would  hold  for  England.  Broughty 
Castle  also  he  promised  to  betray  to  them.  On  the  Border  Wharton 
had  entrapped  the  Laird  of  Johnston,  by  burning  Whamfray  and 
catching  the  laird  in  an  ambush  as  he  rode  to  the  rescue.  Three 
spears  were  broken  on  his  armour.^^  Langholm  was  Wharton's 
hold ;  an  attack  on  the  English  in  Langholm  was,  therefore,  medi- 
tated by  Arran  in  March,  while  ships  from  Holy  Island  were  re- 
victualling  the  Castle  of  St^  Andrews,  and  English  ships  captured  the 
Lion,  a  Scottish  vessel.     In  July  Arran  mustered  a  great  army,  "  the 


THE   FRENCH   TAKE   THE   CASTLE.  7 

Starkest  since  Flodden,"  and  marched  to  the  Border.  The  absolu- 
tion for  the  slayers  of  Beaton  had  arrived  before  April  2.  The 
besieged  mocked  at  it ;  "  they  would  rather  have  a  boll  of  wheat 
than  all  the  Pope's  remissions."-*'* 

But  the  end  of  the  reign  of  the  Castilians  was  at  hand.  While 
Arran,  with  a  great  force,  was  operating  round  Langholm  on  the 
Border,  French  galleys  were  passing  northwards  along  the  east  coast 
(July  6).  Knox  writes  that  these  galleys  came  round  the  point 
into  St  Andrews  Bay  "  upon  the  penult  day  of  June,"  and  that  the 
siege  lasted  for  a  month. -^  But  there  must  be  some  error.  Knox 
describes  the  papal  remission  as  shown  to  the  garrison  on  June  21. 
We  have  seen  that  it  was  mocked  at  before  April  2.  The  garrison's 
technical  objection,  that  the  words  "  we  remit  the  irremissible  "  were 
not  acceptable,  may  have  been  an  afterthought,  taken  later,  in  June. 
Knox  avers  that  the  Castilians  successfully  battered  the  galleons,  and 
that  the  castle  was  not  invested  by  land  till  Arran  arrived  from  the 
siege  of  Langhope  on  the  Border.  "  The  trenches  were  cast, 
ordnance  was  planted  upon  the  Abbey  Kirk,  and  upon  St  Salva- 
tor's  College,  and  yet  was  the  steeple  thereof  burned."  Pitscottie 
says  that  an  Italian  engineer  in  the  employ  of  the  Castilians  aban- 
doned hope  when  he  saw  the  French  guns  "  coming  down  the  street 
alone,"  drawn  by  some  mechanical  arrangement  of  pulleys.  Knox 
demoralised  the  garrison  by  prophesying  their  fall,  their  walls  "should 
be  but  eggshells,"  "their  corrupt  life  would  not  escape  punishment 
of  God."  On  the  night  of  July  29,  he  says,  a  great  breach  was 
effected  between  the  fore  tower  and  the  east  blockhouse.  The 
castle  was  surrendered  to  Leo  Strozzi,  Prior  of  Capua,  on  the  last 
o.  July,  after  an  interview  between  Kirkcaldy  and  the  French 
commander. 

The  terms  of  capitulation  are  uncertain.  Buchanan  avers  that 
the  garrison  bargained  only  for  their  lives,  "  incolumitatem  modo 
pacti."  To  this  Knox  (who  certainly  ought  to  have  known)  adds 
that  they  were  all  to  be  carried  to  France,  while  such  of  them 
as  desired  not  to  "remain  in  service  and  freedom  there"  should 
be  transported  to  any  country  except  Scotland.  They  would  not 
acknowledge  Arran  or  any  Scottish  authority,  "for  they  had  all 
traitorously  betrayed  them."-  Mr  Tytler  does  not  think  that  the 
terms  of  surrender  were  violated,  and,  though  Knox  ought  to  have 
known,  his  version  is  frequently  contradicted  by  contemporary 
*  See  note  at  end  of  chapter,  "The  Absohition  and  the  Siege,"  p.  20. 


8  DOMESTIC   TREACHERY. 

papers.  The  French  razed  the  castle,  lest  it  might  fall  into  English 
hands.  The  existing  ruins  represent  the  new  castle  built  by  Arch- 
bishop Hamilton,  whose  cinqfoils  adorn  the  wall.  The  contemporary 
diarist  declares  that  spoil  to  the  value  of  ;^ioo,ooo  was  carried 
away.  Their  chief  captives  the  French  warded  in  castles  :  Knox, 
with  the  sons  of  the  detested  Laird  of  Mountquhanie  (including 
Sir  James  Balfour,  later  notorious),  was  sent  to  the  galleys.  The 
adventures  of  Knox  and  his  companions  are  later  to  be  touched 
upon ;  meanwhile  the  chief  English  hold  on  Scotland  was  lost,  and 
the  most  ardent  revolutionaries  were  out  of  the  battle. 

Yet  Arran's  burden  was  not  lightened.  He  had  to  face  black 
treachery  at  home  and  open  preparations  for  war  on  the  part  of 
England.  That  Gray  and  Glencairn  were  already  traitors  we  know 
from  their  letters.  Gray,  whom  the  Cardinal  had  but  recently 
rewarded  for  his  loyalty  to  the  Church,  had  been  bargaining,  we 
saw,  to  hold  Perth  for  England,  and  to  deliver  up  Broughty  Castle 
on  the  Firth  of  Tay.  This  important  point,  commanding  the  estuary 
of  Tay  and  the  town  of  Dundee,  was  presently  seized  and  long  held 
by  England.  Glencairn,  in  July,  had  offered  to  raise  2000  "assisters 
and  favourers  of  the  Word  of  God "  for  English  service.^^  There 
were  hundreds  of  "assured  Scots"  among  the  nobles  and  gentry, 
and  Arran  knew  it.  On  August  18  the  Laird  of  Langtown  wrote  to 
Somerset,  "  My  Lord  Bothwell,  and  many  other  lords,  lairds,  and 
gentlemen,  is  in  as  much  danger  as  ever,  on  account  of  a  Register 
book  found  in  Master  Balnaves'  chamber  in  the  Castle  of  St 
Andrews,  and  now  in  the  Governor's  custody,  with  their  names 
and  handwriting  to  support  England."  There  were  two  hundred  of 
these  patriots,  all  enrolled,  including  the  Earl  Marischal,  Cassilis,  Sir 
George  Douglas,  Kilmaurs,  and  Lord  Gray.  Bothwell  had  offered 
to  betray  Hermitage  Castle  in  exchange  for  a  rich  English  marriage.^* 
So  much  for  domestic  treason  among  the  godly  and  the  worldly.  In 
England  the  despatches  of  de  Salve  show  that  great  preparations 
for  war  had  long  been  making  :  on  July  23  he  describes  the  English 
plan  of  campaign. 2^  Somerset  was  bidding  Warwick  to  muster  "  the 
army  appointed  to  invade  Scotland  at  Newcastle"  on  August  24. 
Seventy  or  eighty  ships  and  transports  were  engaged.  The  army 
was  of  15,000  men.-^  The  traitor  Ormistoun  informed  Somerset 
that  the  priests  were  to  send  round  the  Fiery  Cross  as  soon  as 
the  Protector  crossed  the  Border,  a  rare  example  of  this  Celtic 
practice  in  the  Lowlands.     Arran,  said  Ormistoun,  would  make  his 


ENGLISH    INVASION.  9 

Stand  at  the  Peaths,  a  deep  ravine  cutting  the  road  north  of  Ber- 
wick (September  2).  Probably  Ormistoun's  letter  arrived  too  late  : 
Somerset  entered  Scotland  on  the  very  day  when  the  renegade 
wrote.^^  But  he  did  not  find  Arran  guarding  the  dangerous  defile. 
His  forces  were  summoned  to  Fala  Moor  for  the  last  of  August, 
when,  Glencairn  says,  but  few  came  in.  At  this  moment  Angus  was 
promising  to  join  Lennox  and  Wharton  if  they  invaded  by  the  west. 
He  did  not  join  them  :  he  fought  for  Scotland,  and,  months  later, 
when  they  returned,  after  renewed  promises  on  his  part,  he  helped 
to  defeat  them.-^ 

Somerset  prosecuted  the  rough  wooing  with  a  force  of  some 
16,000  men,  while  a  large  fleet  attended  his  progress  along  the  east 
coast,  and  Lennox  with  Wharton  was  gathering  on  the  western  border. 
Under  Somerset  the  leaders  were  Warwick,  Dacre,  Grey  of  ^Vilton,  and 
Sadleyr  as  treasurer.  Sir  Francis  Bryan  led  2000  light  horse.  Sir 
Ralph  Vane  commanded  4000  cavalry.  Sir  Peter  Mewtus  was  at 
the  head  of  600  musketeers,  or  hackbut-men,  on  foot,  and  Gamboa, 
a  Spaniard  (the  Scots  had  no  musketry),  was  captain  of  200  mounted 
musketeers.  Fifteen  pieces  of  heavy  artillery  were  brought  into  the 
field,  with  more  than  a  thousand  carts  and  waggons.  The  discipline 
and  commissariat  were  excellent.  Yet  Somerset  "dreamed  a  weary 
dream."  He  fancied  that  he  returned  to  Court,  and  was  heartily 
welcomed  by  Edward,  "but  yet  him  thought  that  he  had  done 
nothing  at  all  in  this  voyage."  His  dream  was  fulfilled.  He  won 
a  great  victory ;  but,  as  far  as  his  purpose  went, — the  subjugation  of 
Scotland  and  the  marriage, — he  did  "  nothing  at  all."  ^^ 

It  was  on  September  5  that  the  invaders  reached  "the  Peaths," 
a  deep  and  narrow  ravine  of  six  miles  in  length,  which  cut  the  road 
at  right  angles.  Direct  descent  and  ascent  were  practically  impos- 
sible, a  series  of  paths,  worn  by  wayfarers,  ran  obliquely  down  the 
southern  and  up  the  northern  side  of  the  dene.  The  Scots  ought 
to  have  held  this  defile;  but  either  because  they  were  not  fully 
mustered,  or  because  Arran  knew  the  treachery  of  the  local  barons, 
they  had  merely  tried  to  break  the  paths.  The  army  crossed  easily, 
and  were  unopposed.  On  the  8th  September  Somerset  was  at 
Prestonpans.  On  the  9th  his  cavalry  cut  to  pieces  the  Scottish 
light  horse.  The  Protector  then  reconnoitred  from  Faside  hill  :  he 
saw  the  Scots  camped,  in  four  divisions,  "like  four  great  fields 
of  ripe  barley,"  in  an  excellent  position.  On  the.  south  they  were 
flanked  by  a  great  marsh,  on  the  east  the  river  Esk  protected  their 


10  BATTLE   OF   PINKIE. 

front.  Their  left  leaned  on  the  Forth.  Somerset  determined  to 
occupy  with  artillery  the  round  hill  crowned  by  Inveresk  Church, 
which  commands  the  river.  On  his  return  to  camp,  says  Patten,  a 
judge-martial  who  was  present,  Somerset  met  a  Scottish  herald,  and 
rejected  a  challenge  from  Huntly,  and  an  offer,  on  Arran's  part,  to 
let  him  retire  in  peace,  on  honest  conditions.  Now  Pitscottie  and 
Buchanan  aver  that  during  the  night  Somerset  offered  to  retire,  if 
the  Scots  would  keep  Mary  at  home  till  she  was  of  nubile  years,  and 
then  let  her  choose  if  she  would  accept  the  English  wedding.  Arran 
and  Archbishop  Hamilton,  it  is  said,  not  only  rejected  the  offer,  but 
spread  a  report  of  a  provocative  and  truculent  message.  Thus  their 
wickedness  caused  the  Scottish  ruin  at  Pinkie. ^^^  This  report,  unless 
Somerset  changed  his  mind,  is  in  contradiction  with  what  Patten 
heard. 

The  fatal  battle  of  Pinkie  Cleugh  occurred  next  day,  Somerset 
being  aided  by  his  galleons  at  the  mouth  of  the  Esk.  To  tell  the 
story  briefly  :  Somerset,  moving  early  to  occupy  Inveresk  hill,  was 
perplexed  by  finding  the  Scots  across  the  Esk  and  nearer  the 
hill.  Instead  of  merely  holding  it  in  force,  they  pushed  forward  to 
cut  between  the  English  and  the  sea.  The  fire  of  a  galleon  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Esk  scattered  the  archers  of  Argyll  on  the  Scottish 
left,  a  very  long,  scarcely  credible,  range  of  fire,  but  well  attested. 
Somerset  now  hurried  his  cavalry,  in  two  divisions,  to  his  left,  to 
occupy  Faside  hill,  while  his  foot,  apparently  concealed  behind  a 
ridge,  marched  in  the  same  direction  more  slowly.  It  was  a  race 
for  Faside  hill  between  the  English  cavalry  and  the  8000  footmen 
of  Angus.  The  English  horse  gained  the  ridge,  and  charged  across 
a  deep  ditch  and  over  ploughed  land.  The  Scots  met  them  in  the 
old  formation  of  Falkirk,  defeated  them,  slew  many,  and  shook  the 
English  confidence.  Shelley  fell,  Lord  Grey  was  wounded  in  the 
mouth.  The  BuUeners  (Boulogne  veterans)  were  cut  up  :  there  was 
a  rout,  the  foot  being  broken  by  the  flying  horse.  But  the  cavalry 
were  re-formed  :  the  ditch  in  the  Scottish  front  was  lined  by  English 
musketeers,  the  guns  on  Faside  hill  cut  lanes  through  the  Scottish 
ranks,  which  were  also  galled  by  archers.  Just  when  the  Scots 
gained  a  full  view  of  the  English  infantry  in  position  on  the  hill 
and  plain,  they  had  to  face  a  fresh  charge  of  cavalry.  Their  forma- 
tion being  shattered  by  musket  and  artillery  fire,  and  by  their  own 
advance,  they  broke.  The  Highlanders  were  the  first  to  flee. 
Arran   took   horse,  Angus   hid   till   he  found  a  chance  of  escape. 


MARY   AT   INCHMAHONE.  TI 

The  whole  army,  throwing  down  weapons  and  "jacks,"  ran  in 
every  direction.  Some  10,000  were  cut  down  :  few  prisoners  were 
taken,  the  nobles,  except  Huntly,  not  being  distinguishable  by  their 
dress.  In  Huntly,  England  had  an  important  captive.  Many  priests 
were  slain,  and  their  sacred  banner,  the  Church  supplicating  Christ, 
was  given  to  Edward. 

Never — no,  not  at  Solway  Moss — was  Scotland  so  smitten  and  so 
disgraced.  As  later,  at  Dunbar,  they  abandoned  a  strong  defensive 
position,  and  threw  away  the  chance  of  destroying  an  invader. 
Angus  is  said  only  to  have  advanced  in  obedience  to  a  threat  of 
a  charge  of  treason.  In  fact,  the  Scots  thought  that  Somerset  meant 
to  embark  his  infantry,  and  make  a  rapid  retreat  with  his  cavalry. 
To  prevent  this  they  rushed  on  ruin. 

Next  day  Somerset  occupied  Leith.  The  use  he  made  of  his 
victory  was  to  seize  Broughty  Castle  from  the  sea,  to  fortify  Inch- 
colm,  in  the  Firth,  to  ravage  the  country,  and  devastate  Holyrood 
Abbey.  On  the  retreat,  at  the  end  of  a  week,  Hume  Castle  was 
taken,  and  Roxburgh  Castle  was  repaired.  Meanwhile,  on  the 
west  Marches,  Lennox  and  Wharton  ravaged  Annandale,  took  the 
church,  which  was  defended,  and  burned  the  town.^^  As  in  his 
dream,  Somerset  had  practically  done  nothing :  he  had  merely 
strengthened  the  Scottish  resolve  never  to  accept  the  English 
marriage,  and  had  confirmed  the  French  alliance.  After  the  de- 
feat of  "Black  Saturday"  (September  10),  Arran  with  the  Arch- 
bishop hastened  to  the  queen-mother  at  Stirling.  On  September 
16  (?),  just  before  his  retreat,  Somerset  ordered  Norroy  Herald  to 
carry  proposals  to  the  queen-mother  and  the  Council.  The  Pro- 
tector has  only  come  to  Scotland  "  to  forward  the  godly  purpose 
of  the  marriage,"  and  to  say  that  if  they  will  not  yield  to  his  amicable 
proceedings,  he  will  accomplish  his  purpose  by  force.^^  The  queen- 
mother  now  removed  Mary  to  the  Isle  of  Inchmahone,  in  the  Loch 
of  Menteith,  "  half-way  between  Stirling  and  the  Highlands."  ^^ 
How  long  the  child  stayed  there  is  uncertain,  assuredly  not  later 
than  February  1548.  Her  "  child's  garden  "  has  been  commemor- 
ated, but  from  October  to  January  there  is  little  opportunity  for 
horticulture.^*  Mary  was  safe  enough,  despite  attempts  by  Grey  of 
Wilton  on  the  loyalty  of  Sir  George  Douglas,  who,  on  October  9, 
promised  Grey  that  he  would  try  to  put  Mary  in  his  hands  for  a 
reward.^^  Sir  George  was  offering  schemes  for  an  English  invasion, 
but  Somerset  saw  through  his  purpose  of  destroying  the  invading 


12  FRENCH   AID    ARRIVES    (1548). 

force.      By  November  5  the  Laird  of  Longniddry,  a  spy,  informed 
Somerset  that  the  Scots  had  sent  an  envoy  to  France,  and  schemed 
to  carry  thither  the  child  queen.^^     Indeed  by  October  23  a  French 
gentleman  had  turned  Arran  and  the  queen-mother  from  a  purpose, 
negotiated  by  Glencairn,  of  accepting  Somerset's  proposals.^'^     While 
French  aid  was  being  asked  and  prepared,  the  chief  scenes  of  mili- 
tary operations  were  Dundee,  Broughty  Castle  (held  by  Warwick's 
brother,  Sir  Andrew  Dudley),  and  Buccleuch's  country  on  the  Border. 
Between  October  1547  and  February  1548  many  strange  examples 
were  given  of  the  mixture  of  Protestant  piety,  perfidy,  and  ambition. 
On  the  whole,  it  seems  that  the  populace,  as  far  as  it  was  touched 
by  Protestantism,  remained  staunch  and  single-hearted,  while  most 
of  the  Reforming  gentry  and  nobles  were  hypocritical  self-seekers. 
On  October  27  the  burgesses  of  Dundee,  overawed  by  Dudley  in 
the  adjacent   Broughty  Castle,  bound  themselves  to   be  "  faithful 
setters  forth  of  God's  work."  ^    Arran,  in  Edinburgh,  was  unpopular: 
"the  wives"  (anticipating  Jenny  Geddes)  "were  like  to  have  stoned 
him  to  death."  2^     Doubtless  they  blamed  him  for  the  slaughter  of 
their  husbands  and  sons  at  Pinkie.     Fife,  Angus,  and  Dundee  called 
out,  Dudley  says,  for  Bibles  and  Testaments.      "  Yet,"  writes  a  spy, 
"it  makes  one  sore   to  see  these    gentlemen   feigning    themselves 
favourers  of  'The  Word  of  God,'  more  for  your  pleasure  than  for 
God's  sake."     Hypocrisy  that  sickens  a  spy  must  be  odious  indeed. 
The  next  really  important  move  in  the  game  was  the  arrival  of  a 
large  French  force,  under  Andre  de  Montalembert,  Sieur  d'Esse,  in 
June  1548.     This  was  the  result  of  many  petitions  by  the  queen- 
mother.      The  winter  after  Pinkie  fight,  and  the  spring,  had  seen 
Argyll   besiege    Broughty   Castle,   and  withdraw,  promising  to  aid 
the   English   marriage,    for   a   bribe   of   1000    crowns.*"      Broughty 
Castle,  under  Sir  Andrew  Dudley,  had  gallantly  held  out,  and  in 
February   (21-27)   a   double  invasion    by   Grey   of  Wilton    in    the 
east,  and  Lennox  and  Wharton  in  the  west,  had  been  ruined  by  a 
defeat  inflicted  on  Wharton  by  Angus  and  Lord  Maxwell.     Grey 
later  destroyed  Sir  George  Douglas's  house  at  Dalkeith,  and  took 
his    son,   the    Master    of   Morton.     He  also   fortified   Haddington 
strongly,  that  being  the  chief  object  of  his  invasion,  and  it  was  at  the 
abbey  outside  Haddington  (July  7,  1548)  that  Parliament  accepted 
the  hand  of  the  Dauphin  for  Mary,  carefully  securing  Scottish  inde- 
pendence.    Dunbar  was  now  placed  in  French  keeping,  but  Mary 
of  Guise  exaggerated  when  she  declared  that  the  Estates  "would 


MARY   LANDS   IN    FRANCE   (1548).  T3 

put  everything  into  the  hands  of  the  King  of  France."  ^^  That 
was  what  France  desired  in  vain,  and  soon  it  became  apparent  that 
jealousy  of  French  domination  would  throw  Scotland  into  the  arms 
of  England. 

Mary  had  won  the  consent  of  Angus,  Douglas,  and  Cassilis  by 
the  usual  means.  Arran  had  already  been  compensated  by  the 
Duchy  of  Chatelherault  (February  8,  1548).  Huntly  and  Argyll 
received  the  Order  of  St  Michael.'*^  Yet  both  in  March  1549 
will  be  found  negotiating  with  England  "  to  the  end  they  may 
compel  the  French  King  to  return  the  young  Queen  to  Scotland," 
and  undertaking  to  favour  her  English  marriage.*^  Meanwhile  the 
robberies  and  oppressions  by  the  French  soldiery,  which  led  to 
bloodshed  between  them  and  their  allies,  increased  the  jealousy 
of  French  designs.  After  much  scathe  on  either  side,  Haddington 
was  relieved,  and  the  siege  broken  up  in  the  middle  of  August.  By 
that  date,  leaving  Dumbarton  with  her  four  child  friends,  the  four 
Maries,  on  August  2,  Mary  was  safely  landed  on  the  friendly  French 
shores  (August  13).  Somerset  retorted  by  again  setting  up  the 
claims  of  Edward  I.^  The  wars  took  a  character  of  ferocity.  Arran 
refused  quarter  to  any  Scot  taken  in  arms  for  England.*^  Somerset 
retorted  by  a  general  refusal  of  quarter.  The  Scots  were  all  rebels 
to  "  their  superior  and  sovereign  lord,  the  King's  Majesty  of  Eng- 
land." Poor  as  they  were,  the  Scots  purchased  English  prisoners 
from  French  captors,  and  then  tortured  them  to  death. *^  Mary  of 
Guise  had  often  to  complain  of  the  excesses  of  the  French.  They 
seize  farmhouses,  and  use  the  furniture  for  firewood.  "  Our  peasants 
have  no  property,  and  never  remain  more  than  five  or  six  years  on  a 
holding,"  a  singular  fact,  but  strongly  corroborated.*'^  Knox,  who 
never  omitted  a  chance  of  describing  a  grimly  humorous  situation, 
chronicles  a  great  tumult  in  October  1548.  On  a  trifling  quarrel  a 
riot  arose  in  Edinburgh.  The  Provost  and  others  were  slain  by  the 
French.  D'Esse,  d'Oysel,  and  the  queen  -  mother  composed  the 
strife  by  promising  that  the  French  would  do  a  great  feat  of  arms. 
They  nearly  surprised  Haddington,  when  one  of  the  besieged, 
shouting  "  Ware  before  !  "  to  warn  his  own  party,  then  struggling 
with  the  French  at  the  East  Port,  fired  two  large  pieces  of  artillery. 
These  pierced  the  French  ranks,  cannoned  off  the  wall  of  the  church 
back  into  the  assailing  party,  thence  cannoned  back  through  them 
again,  off  the  wall  of  St  Catherine's  Chapel,  back  to  the  church  wall 
again,  and  so  on,   "  so  often  that  there  fell  more  than  a  hundred  of 


14  PEACE   (1550). 

the  French  at  those  two  shots  only."^^  The  incident  is  not  men- 
tioned in  strictly  contemporary  accounts.  Though  the  large  force 
under  Shrewsbury  not  only  relieved  Haddington,  but  was  rewarded 
by  the  capture  of  Dundee  and  other  successes,  the  Scots  cut  off 
a  raiding  party  in  Fife.  Huntly  returned  to  Scotland — according  to 
Lesley,  by  escaping  while  his  jailers  were  busy  at  cards  at  Morpeth.*^ 
De  Selve's  despatches  are  full  of  suspicions  of  Huntly's  perfidy 
and  double-dealing.  Was  he  a  patriot  ?  Was  he  a  traitor  Scot  ? 
Probably  he  took  each  part  by  turns. 

The  Scots  captured  Hume  Castle,  and  were  reinforced  by  French 
soldiers  under  De  Termes.  Mary  of  Guise  describes  this  leader  as 
possessing,  in  the  gout  and  a  pretty  young  wife,  quite  enough  to 
provide  him  with  occupation.^°  Nevertheless,  a  force  of  French  and 
Scots  cut  off  and  captured  Sir  John  Wilford,  the  courageous  captain 
of  the  English  garrison  in  Haddington.  Jedburgh  and  Ferniehirst 
were  won  on  the  Border,  Inchcolm  was  recovered,  and  domestic 
discords  broke  out  in  England.  Somerset  had  offended  by  what 
was  called  avarice  and  insolence  :  his  lenity  to  agrarian  insurrec- 
tion made  him  suspected  by  the  nobles.  Warwick,  having  put 
down  a  rising  in  Norfolk,  appeared  as  the  rival  of  the  Protector, 
who  secured  the  person  of  Edward  VI.,  but  presently  yielded  to 
force  or  fear.  The  victor  of  Pinkie  was  conducted  to  the  Tower ; 
but  his  successful  rivals  were  unable  to  retain  the  English  hold  on 
Boulogne.  The  Scots  and  French  had  already  taken  Broughty 
Castle  and  Eauder ;  the  English  were  compelled  to  make  peace 
in  March-April  1550,  and  to  abandon  Boulogne  and  all  their  holds 
in  Scotland. ^^  The  eight  years'  war  had  again  demonstrated  that 
England,  when  divided  by  domestic  strife,  and  opposed  by  both 
France  and  Scotland,  could  never  overpower  her  northern  vassal. 
The  clergy  marked  their  opportunity  by  burning  one  Adam  Wallace 
as  a  heretic.^- 

That  this  execution  was  as  impolitic  as  cruel  is  obvious.  "  The 
common  people"  had  now  opportunities  of  reading  and  hearing  the 
Scriptures.  From  these  they  could  draw  no  conclusions  except 
that  the  Christian  doctrine,  as  exhibited  in  practice  by  priests  as 
profligate  as  Hamilton,  and  by  peers  as  treacherous  as  Angus, 
Huntly,  and  Argyll,  was  not  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  Mere  cruelty 
did  not  shock  the  populace.  For  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  they 
were  to  behold  the  burning  of  witches  without  remorse  or  pity.  But 
they  feared  and  hated  witches,  whereas  men  like  Wallace  neither 


MARTYRDOM  OF  ADAM  WALLACE.  1 5 

had  injured  nor  could  injure  them.  While  the  English  were  occu- 
pying parts  of  Scotland,  no  Scot  had  suffered  for  his  opinions.  The 
people  would  therefore  infer  that  England  was  a  Power  less  cruel  to 
the  innocent  than  France.  All  this  made  in  favour  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. It  is  true  that  Protestantism  in  England  was  also  keenly 
engaged  in  burnings  and  persecutions.  The  Act  of  Uniformity  was 
being  enforced  by  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Latimer,  Parker,  Cecil,  and 
others.  Champneys,  a  priest  who  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ ; 
Patton,  a  tanner  ;  Thumb,  a  butcher ;  and  Ashton,  another  Uni- 
tarian priest,  were  all  tried  :  they  all,  unlike  Wallace,  abjured — they 
all  burnt  their  faggots  and  saved  their  lives.  But  Joan  Bocher  was 
tried  for  similar  opinions  before  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  others,  was 
condemned,  and,  despite  the  tears  of  Edward  VL,  was  burned  in  the 
year  following  the  martyrdom  of  Wallace,  as  was  Von  Parris,  a 
Dutch  Unitarian. ^^  In  this  matter  of  persecution  there  was  then 
nothing  to  choose  between  England  and  Scotland,  Hamilton  and 
Latimer  ;  they  merely  burned  different  sets  of  people.  Yet  a  point 
so  notorious  is  usually  overlooked  by  historians  of  the  Scottish 
Reformation.  The  true  difference  came  out  later.  Persecutors  as 
they  were,  the  Presbyterians  did  not  burn^  and  scarcely  ever  executed, 
either  Catholics  or  Unitarians  as  such. 

Denunciations  of  heresy  had  been  made  the  year  before  Wallace's 
death,  in  a  Provincial  Council  of  1549.  Every  ordinary  in  his 
diocese,  every  abbot  and  prior,  was  to  make  inquisition  of  heresy. 
Among  the  heresies  noted,  Unitarianism  does  not  appear.  For  some 
reason  it  never  was  popular  in  Scotland.  In  the  same  Council  the 
Church  tried  to  put  her  own  house  in  order.  Priests  were  to  dismiss 
their  concubines.  The  medical  advice  of  Jerome  Cardan  to  the 
Archbishop  of  St  Andrews  proves  that  the  Archbishop  did  not  obey 
his  own  rule.  Monasteries  were  to  be  visited  and  reformed  :  bishops 
were  not  to  keep  drunkards,  pimps,  gamblers  (Lyndsay  accuses  Beaton 
of  very  high  play),  and  buffoons  in  their  establishments.  There  were 
other  restrictions  on  a  Church  which,  by  its  own  confession,  needed 
them  badly.  On  the  evangelical  side,  the  Protestant  teachers,  like 
Adam  Wallace  (and  unlike  the  ruffians  and  aristocrats  of  the  party), 
were  usually  men  of  unblemished  life.  This  contrast  made  a  direct 
and  natural  appeal  to  the  populace.  Thus  the  Reformation  gathered 
and  grew,  while  the  love  of  sheer  destruction  of  "  idols,"  or  works  of 
sacred  art,  and  the  pleasures  of  plunder,  made  a  constant  appeal  to 
the  passions  of  Knox's  "rascal  multitude.'" 


l6  MARY   OF   GUISE   TO   BE   REGENT. 

The  approaching  day  of  doom  had  been  hastened  even  before 
Wallace's  death.  In  February  or  March  1549  Knox  was  released 
from  the  galleys,  by  April  7  he  was  in  England.  His  fellow-captives 
of  the  castle  garrison  were  set  free  by  July  1550.  Presently  Knox 
was  a  licensed  preacher  at  Berwick ;  there  he  abode  for  two  years,  * 
for  as  many  in  Newcastle,  and  then  was  a  year  in  London.^*  From 
Berwick  his  doctrine  might  readily  be  heard  by  Scots  within  easy 
distance  of  the  Border. 

Only  one  ingredient  in  the  Medea's  caldron  of  Revolution  was 
quiescent,  and  that  ingredient  Mary  of  Guise  stirred  into  activity. 
Leaving  Scotland  in  September  1550,  she  visited  France.  Her  pro- 
fessed object  was  to  see  her  daughter.  Her  real  aim  was,  by  the  aid 
of  her  kinsmen,  the  Guises,  and  the  French  Court,  to  obtain  the 
regency  for  herself,  and  to  oust  Arran,  who,  to  distinguish  him  from 
his  son.  Earl  of  Arran,  must  now  be  called  Duke  of  Chatelherault. 
She  was  accompanied,  says  the  '  Diurnal  of  Occurrents  '  ({\'hich  mis- 
dates her  departure,  making  it  August  instead  of  September  8),  by 
Lord  James  Stuart,  Queen  Mary's  natural  brother,  and  many  other 
nobles  and  clergy.  She  was  received  "as  a  goddess,"  and  her  com- 
panions were  bribed,  or  magnificently  entertained,  according  as  we 
follow  Lesley  or  the  Venetian  Minister.  The  letters  of  Mason,  the 
English  Ambassador  to  France,  prove,  or  allege,  that  her  stay  with 
her  kinsmen  was  not  altogether  happy.  She  arrived  on  September 
25.  Her  nobles  at  once  squabbled  about  their  lodgings.  The 
ambassador  was  gouty,  and  wished  to  return  home  "and  die  among 
Christian  men."  This  disposition  makes  his  temper  crabbed.  He 
announces  that  the  French  wish  to  appoint  a  French  Governor  of 
Scotland,  to  which  the  Scots  will  not  agree.  On  January  28,  1551, 
the  English  Council  sent  to  Mason  a  secret  agent,  recommended  by 
the  scheming  Balnaves.  He  arrived  on  February  24,  but  was  very 
timid,  and  provided,  as  a  substitute  for  himself,  young  Kirkcaldy  of 
Grange,  who  henceforth  was  deep  in  what  may  be  euphemistically 
styled  "secret  service."  His  cypher  name  was  "Corax."  Mason 
suspected  a  French  war  on  England  ;  "  it  is  already  half  concluded  to 
send  away  the  Queen  of  Scots  with  all  convenient  speed,  and  with 
her  300  or  400  men-at-arms  and  10,000  foot."^^  Mary  of  Guise  is 
hostile  to  England,  and  "  is  in  this  Court  made  a  goddess."  Yet  the 
Scots  (March  18)  were  grown  home-sick.  "The  Scots  mislike  the 
yoke  that  foolishly  they  have  put  their  head  in"  (April  22).  By 
April  28  one  Stuart  was  charged  with  an  attempt  to  poison  the  young 


THE   REGENCY  OF    MARY   OF   GUISE   (1554)-  17 

Queen  of  Scotland.  He  was  an  archer  of  the  Scots  Guard,  but,  we  ' 
may  hope,  he  was  not  known  to  "  Corax."  ^^  He  had  been  one  of 
the  Castilians  ;  Hke  Knox  he  had  rowed  in  the  galleys.  Mason  re- 
ported his  escape  to  Ireland  (April  29).  He  was  captured,  and 
brought  to  Angers  on  June  5.  Whether  he  was  hanged,  as  Lesley 
says,  or  not,  Dumas  furnishes  him  with  later  adventures  in  the  novel 
called  '  L'Horoscope.' 

Mary  of  Guise's  return  was  said  to  be  delayed  by  an  intrigue  of 
the  French  king  with  Lady  Fleming,  one  of  her  suite.  She  arrived 
in  England  on  October  2  2  :  she  had  an  interview  with  Edward  VI., 
who  is  said  to  have  pressed  his  own  suit  for  the  hand  of  her  daughter. 
By  the  end  of  November  Mary  of  Guise  was  in  Scotland  again.  Dur- 
ing the  queen-dowager's  stay  in  France  Henry  II.  had  sent  the  Bishop 
of  Ross  and  other  envoys  to  Chatelherault,  hinting  broadly  that  he 
wished  Mary  of  Guise  to  assume  the  Regency.^'^  The  emissaries 
found  the  Duke  very  reluctant  to  acquiesce.  Nor  did  the  change 
at  once  take  place.  The  queen-mother  and  Arran  visited  the  North 
(where  the  captain  of  Clanchattan  had  a  year  before  been  executed 
by  Huntly),  and  inflicted  various  penalties  on  unruly  Celts.  In  the 
South  the  blood-feud  for  Ker  of  Cessford  had  caused  the  death  of 
Buccleuch  in  Edinburgh,  when 

"startled  burghers  fled,  afar. 
The  furies  of  the  Border  war."  ^^ 

This  "unhappy  accident"  the  Kers  professed  to  deplore.  The 
queen-mother  soothed  the  various  discords,  and,  secretly  tampering 
with  the  nobles,  undermined  the  power  of  Chatelherault.^^  The 
dowager's  party  proved  the  stronger.  In  a  Parliament  at  Edinburgh 
on  April  12,  1554,  Chatelherault  resigned  the  Regency  to  his  rival. 
Says  Knox,  "A  crown  was  put  on  her  head,  as  seemly  a  sight  (if 
men  had  eyes)  as  to  put  a  saddle  upon  the  back  oiane  unrewly  kow."  ^^ 
Arran  received  an  approval  of  his  conduct  in  the  Regency,  a  general 
amnesty  for  his  actions,  and  a  general  acknowledgment  of  his  finan- 
cial rectitude.  ^^ 

There  was  to  be  "a  new  world."  The  death  of  Edward  VI.,  in 
July  1553,  the  accession  of  Mary  Tudor,  the  consequent  persecu- 
tions and  returns  to  Scotland  of  Protestant  Scottish  refugees,  and  the 
conduct  of  Mary  of  Guise  in  selecting  French  and  deposing  Scottish 
Ministers,  all  worked  to  a  single  end.  Scotland  had  ever  detested 
the  tenure  of  power    by   foreigners :    Knox    arrived    to   blow  the 

VOL.    II.  E 


l8  NOTES. 

smouldering  embers  of  Protestantism ;  and  the  circumstances  that 
seemed  to  favour  the  CathoHc  cause  resulted  speedily  in  its  down- 
fall. "  Bloody  Mary  "  might  ally  herself  with  Spain  :  Mary  of  Guise 
might  serve  her  own  ambitious  House  :  both  might  seem  defenders 
of  the  Faith,  but  reaction  was  inevitable,  and  the  Church  was 
foredoomed. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER    I. 

'  That  Henry  asserted  the  feudal  claims  of  Edward  I.  has  been  denied.  The 
reader  may  consult  the  copious  evidence  for  the  fact  in  Mr  Pollard's  article  on 
Somerset  and  Scotland,  in  the  'English  Historical  Review,' July  1898,  pp.  464- 
472.     At  first  Somerset  kept  the  claims  in  the  background. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  27  ;  Bain,  Calendar  of  Scottish  Papers,  i.  34. 

^  Knox,  i.  180. 

*  Privy  Council,  i.  57  ;  Laing's  Knox,  i.  180,  note  4. 

^  Privy  Council,  i.  22-27.  ^  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  466-480. 

^  Pollard,  'English  Historical  Review,'  ut  supra.  Correspondance  Politique 
de  Odet  de  Selve,  pp.  53,  54,  93.     Paris :  Alcan,  188S. 

8  Thorpe's  Calendar,  i.  59.  ^  De  Selve,  53,  54,  143. 

^•^  Odet  de  Selve,  Correspondance  Politique,  pp.  66,  78,  86  ;  Privy  Council, 
i.  43.  ^^  Privy  Council,  i.  52-54. 

^-  Knox  appears  to  date  this  at  the  end  of  January  1547  (i.  182,  183).  Com- 
pare Tytler,  vi.  8  (1837),  citing  State  Paper  for  December  17,  and  Thorpe,  i.  60; 
Privy  Council,  i.  57,  58.  Writing  from  memory,  Knox  was  often  incoriect  in  his 
dates,  and  in  this  and  other  cases,  his  error  helps  his  argument  that  Arran  was 
treacherous. 

^^  Knox,  i.  183. 

'■*  Proceedings,  Scot.  Society  of  Antiquaries,  1862,  iii.  58. 

'^  See  Hume  Brown,  Life  of  John  Knox,  i.  59. 

^*  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  i.  94. 

"  Knox,  i.  201.  Knox  declares  that  "so  blessed  were  his  labours,"  yet  (i.  204) 
he  denounced  the  "corrupt  life"  of  his  converts. 

18  Thorpe,  i.  61. 

13  State  Papers,  Domestic,  Addenda,  1547-1565,  p.  323. 

^^  Stewart  of  Cardonald,  a  spy,  to  Wharton.     Calendar  of  Scottish  Papers,  i.  4. 

21  Knox,  i.  203. 

2''  Knox,  i.  205,  206  ;  Buchanan,  xv.  45.  Lesley  says  the  terms  asked  were  that 
the  garrison  should  be  salvi  atm  fortunis  ;  but  the  terms  granted  were  that,  subject 
to  the  will  of  the  King  of  France,  the  men  only  should  go  forth  unharmed,  soli 
hotnines  integri  discederent  (Lesley,  p.  461  ;  Rome,  1578).  If  Knox's  account  of 
the  terms  is  correct,  they  were  not  kept.  Possibly  Knox  confused  the  terms  asked 
for  with  the  terms  actually  obtained.  Mr  Hume  Brown  ('Life  of  Knox,'  i.  80) 
says  that  Buchanan's  evidence  confirms  Knox's.  The  words  of  Buchanan,  "  in- 
columitatem  modo  pacti,"  seem  to  me  to  mean  that  they  were  merely  promised 
their  bare  lives.  Compare  the  use  of  incolumitas  by  Ctesar,  De  Bello  Civili, 
iii,  28,  and  Tytler,  vi.  17,  note  i  (1837). 


NOTES.  19 

23  Calendar  of  Scottish  Papers,  i.  10. 

^  Calendar,  i.  lO,  14.  -^  De  Salve,  pp.   16S-170. 

2^  Calendar,  i.  II-14.      De  Selve  gives  similar  numbers. 

27  Calendar,  i.  15,  16,  17,  18.  "*  Calendar,  i.  16;  August  31,  1547. 

2''  The  account  of  the  expedition  is  mainly  from  Patten's  Diary,  in  Dalyell's 
'  Fragments  of  Scottish  History  '  (179S). 

^0  Buchanan,  fol.  180 ;  Pitscottie,  xxii.  10.  For  another  report,  Tytler,  vi. 
25,  26. 

31  Calendar,  i.  19,  20.  ^^  Thorpe,  i.  66. 

33  De  Selve,  "among  the  Savages"  (p.  204,  September  17). 

3*  Hay  Fleming,  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  pp.  191,  192. 

35  Calendar,  i.  25.     October  25.     Thorpe,  p.  69;  Calendar,  i.  31,  32. 

36  Calendar,  i.  37,  38.     Longniddry  asks  for  money. 

3'''  Calendar,  i.  30.  ^^  Calendar,  i.  33. 

3''  Calendar,  i.  34.  '"'  Calendar,  i.  71. 

^'  Teulet,  'Relations  Politiques,'  i.  179;  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  481. 

■*"  Knox,  i.  217.  *^  Calendar,  i.  173.  I74- 

■*-'  December  1548  (Calendar,  i.  170,  171).  *®  Calendar,  i.  175,  176. 

■*6  Beaugue,  '  Ilistoire  de  la  Guerre  d'Ecosse,'  Maitland  Club,  p.  104. 

^7  Teulet,  i.  '  Relations  Politiques,'  p.  201  (1862).  '^^  Knox,  i.  222,  223. 

4»  Lesley,  p.  475. 

5"  November  29,  1549.     (Teulet,  i.  210,  211.     Marie  to  the  Cardinal  de  Guise.) 

5^  Foedera,  xv.  211-217  ;  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  85-87. 

'-  Knox,  i.  237-241. 

We  may  compare,  as  to  this  martyr,  the  contemporary  account  in  Foxe, 
where  the  conduct  and  language  of  the  Court  ara  not  (as  by  Knox)  described  as 
violent.  The  accused  is  not  addressed  as  "false  traitor,"  "heretic,"  "knave," 
and  so  forth.  Wallace  is  described  by  Knox  as  "  a  simple  man,  without  great 
learning,  but  one  that  was  zealous  in  godliness,  and  of  an  upright  life."  He 
was  much  in  the  company  of  the  wife  of  Ormistoun,  himself  then  banished  as  a 
traitor.  Through  the  last  three  years  of  war  he  and  Brunston  had  been  constant 
agents  of  Somerset.  Wallace  was  apprehended  at  Lord  Seton's  house,  Wyntoun, 
near  Haddington,  and  his  trial  took  place  before  Arran,  Huntly,  Glencairn  (son  of 
the  "godly"  Earl,  recently  dead),  "and  divers  others  besides  the  Bishops  and 
their  rabble."  The  scene  was  "the  Kirk  of  the  Black  Thieves,  otherwise 
Friars,"  the  Dominicans.  Accused  of  preaching,  Wallace  denied  the  fact :  he 
had  only  "given  exhortation,"  and  read  the  Scriptures  "in  privy  places." 
According  to  Knox,  Wallace  in  his  defence  styled  the  Bishops  "dumb  dogs,  and 
unsavoury  salt."  The  charges  against  him  were  read.  He  was  accused  of 
christening  his  own  child,  of  denying  Purgatory  and  the  efficacy  of  prayer  to 
saints  and  for  the  dead.  He  admitted  the  charges,  and  denounced  the  mass  as 
"abomination  before  God."  He  was  condemned,  and  burned  on  the  Castle 
Hill.  Turning  to  Foxe's  account,  we  see  that  Argyll — "Justice" — and  Angus 
were  present,  and  the  whole  "  Senate."  Glencairn  is  not  named  ;  Knox,  how- 
ever, says  that  he  made  a  kind  of  protest  to  "  the  Bishop  of  Orkney  and  others 
that  sat  near  him. "  Knox  and  Foxe  agree  in  stating  that  Wallace  appealed  to 
the  Bible  as  his  judge.  He  was  not,  if  we  follow  Foxe,  burned  on  the  day  of  his 
condemnation,  as  Knox  declares  ;  the  intervening  day  was  passed  in  attempts  to 
argue  or  tease  him  into  recantation.  He  did  not,  as  in  Knox,  insult  the  Bishops 
as  "dumb  dogs,"  or  Foxe  omits  the  fact.  He  appears  to  have  been  strangled 
before  the  burning.     Foxe's  account  is  from  "testimonies  and  letters  brought 


20  NOTES. 

from  Scotland  in  1550."  (Laing's  Knox,  i.  543-550.)  In  both  versions  Wallace 
calls  the  mass  an  "abomination"  or  "abominable."  Foxe  declares  that,  as 
Wallace  went  to  the  stake,  "the  common  people  said,  'God  have  mercy  upon 
him.'" 

"  Lingard,  v.  159  (1855).  "  Knox.  ii.  2S0. 

^'  February*  23.  Foreign  Calendar,  Edward  VI.,  p.  75.  (Edited  by  TurnbuU, 
1861.) 

^  Teulet,  i.  249-260  (Bannatyne  Club).  Foreign  Calendar,  Edward  VI.,  pp. 
97,  121,  126.     Compare  Hay  Fleming,  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  p.  200,  note  15. 

^  Lesley,  p.  486.  ^^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  109,  152. 

•'^  Lesley,  p.  477.  *•  Knox,  i.  242. 

°^  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  602-604. 

The  Absoldtion  and  the  Siege. 

At  this  point  it  seems  desirable  to  say  something  about  the  trustworthiness  of 
Knox's  History.  He  was  in  the  castle,  a  trusted  adviser ;  he  ought  to  have 
known  what  occurred.  But  he  asserts  that  the  galleys  appeared  on  "  the  penult 
day  of  June."  Eight  days  earlier,  he  avers,  the  Government  had  shown  the 
Castilians  a  copy  of  the  papal  absolution,  "containing  .  .  .  this  clause,  J?e- 
niittimiis  irremissibile''' — that  is,  "we  remit  the  crime  that  cannot  be  remitted." 
The  garrison  thought  that  this  was  not  a  trustworthy  absolution,  and  declined  to 
give  up  the  castle.  Yet  we  know  that  the  absolution  arrived  early  in  April.  As 
Knox  is  fond  of  charging  his  adversaries  with  treachery,  it  is  needful  to  note  the 
facts.  The  absolution  did  not  arrive  eight  days  before  "the  penult  of  June."  On 
April  2  James  Stuart  of  Cardonald,  as  we  saw,  reported  to  Wharton  that  M.  de 
Combas,  a  French  diplomatist,  had  already  brought  the  document.  On  April  24  de 
Selve  wrote  that  he  suspected  that  the  Castilians  had  refused  the  absolution  carried 
by  de  Combas.  Cardonald  avers  that  before  April  2  the  Castilians  were  declaring 
that  they  would  rather  have  a  boll  of  wheat  than  all  the  Pope's  remissions,  "  and 
so  in  no  way  can  he"  (Arran)  "have  St  Andrews,  albeit  they  have  not  declared 
him  plainly,  but  allege  against  him  fault  in  himself,  for  not  keeping  of  his 
promise."  In  describing  the  coming  of  the  French  ships,  Knox  remarks,  "This 
treasonable  mean  had  the  Governor,  the  Bishop,  the  Queen,  and  Monsieur  Dosele 
under  the  Appointment  drawn."  Now  Arran  asked  for  French  aid  on  November 
26,  long  before  the  "  Appointment "  of  December  17  (Privy  Council  Register,  i. 
54).  There  seems  to  be  no  treachery  on  Arran's  part.  Apparently,  however, 
it  was  fair  for  the  Castilians  to  engage  English  aid,  and  even  to  ask  Henry,  to 
move  the  Emperor,  to  urge  the  Pope  to  refuse  the  requested  absolution. 

In  short,  the  Castilians  never  meant  to  keep  their  promise  :  never  meant  to 
surrender  the  castle  on  their  own  stipulated  terms — the  receipt  of  a  papal  ab- 
solution. Yet  their  ally,  Knox,  accuses  the  governor  of  treachery  (Knox,  i.  203  ; 
Calendar,  i.  4,  5  ;  de  Selve,  p.  134). 

As  to  the  siege  of  the  castle  by  the  French  galleons,  Knox  makes  it  begin  on 
June  30.  After  two  days'  fire  from  the  ships,  "  the  castle  handled  them  so  that 
Sancta  Barbara  [the  gunner's  goddess]  helped  them  nothing."  One  galleon  was 
nearly  wrecked,  the  rest  retired  to  Dundee,  and,  on  Arran's  arrival  from  the 
Border,  the  castle  was  invested  on  the  land  side.  This  was  on  July  19.  For  the 
first  twenty  days  the  castle  "had  many  prosperous  chances,"  but  Knox  warned 
the  garrison  that  their  corrupt  life  could  not  escape  God's  punishment,  and  that 
their  walls  would  be  but  eggshells.     On  July  31,  after  a  heavy  fire,  the  castle 


NOTES.  21 

surrendered  (Knox,  i.  204,  205).  It  appears  that  there  is  some  error  or  confusion 
in  Knox's  account  of  this  famous  siege  of  the  castle,  of  which  he  was  an  eye- 
witness. The  '  Diurnal  of  Occurrents  '  places  the  arrival  of  Strozzi  and  his  fleet 
on  July  24.  In  State  Papers  Domestic,  Addenda,  Edward  VI.,  No.  23,  July  13, 
1547,  Lord  Eure  writes  to  Somerset  from  Berwick  that  a  number  of  galleons 
have  passed  that  town  towards  Scotland.  He  again  mentions  them  as  French 
galleons  on  July  14.  De  Selve  had  the  news  from  Somerset  on  July  16.  On 
July  23  he  learned  that  the  galleons  were  investing  the  castle.  On  August  2 
Somerset  had  news  that  a  galleon  had  been  destroyed  by  the  bursting  of  a  gun, 
and  this  may  be  the  ship  spoken  of  by  Knox  as  wrecked  or  nearly  wrecked.  De 
Selve  did  not  believe  the  story.  On  August  5  Somerset  informed  de  Selve  that 
the  castle  had  surrendered  on  the  first  day  that  the  battery  was  erected  (de  Selve, 
p.  178).  It  does  not  seem  easy  to  reconcile  these  facts  with  Knox's  dates  and 
statements. 


22 


CHAPTER    11, 

THE    REGENCY.       THE    MARRIAGE    OF    MARY    STUART. 
1554-1559- 

Till  the  moment  when  Mary  of  Guise  assumed  the  Regency, 
the  national  sentiment  of  Scotland,  on  the  whole,  must  have 
preferred  the  French  alliance  to  any  union  or  compact  with 
England.  This  would  not,  of  course,  be  the  opinion  of  men 
honestly  convinced  of  the  merits  of  the  Reformation.  In  "their 
auld  enemies  of  England"  these  Protestants,  like  Sir  John  Mason, 
recognised  "Christian  men";  in  the  French  they  saw  "idolaters." 
Even  before  the  change  of  religion,  persons  like  Major  had  found 
the  best  hope  for  Scotland  in  union  with  England.  Later,  all 
who  sincerely  held  the  principles  of  Knox  and  Rough  were  of 
the  same  mind.  The  nobles,  as  has  been  shown,  though  they 
might  speak  the  language  of  the  godly,  were  alternately  false  to 
both  parties  ;,  while  all  who  had  suffered  in  the  ferocious  wars 
of  Somerset  had  a  cruel  hatred  of  the  English,  and  little  love 
for  the  French.  A  curious  manifesto  of  a  Unionist,  James  Hen- 
derson, is  'The  Godly  and  Golden  Book,'  addressed  to  Thynne 
and  Cecil  (July  9,  1549).  Henderson  desires  "the  union  and 
matrimony  of  the  northern  and  southern  parts  of  this  isle  of 
Great  Britain."  All  are  "of  one  tongue  and  nature,  bred  in  one 
isle,  compassed  of  the  sea."  Henderson,  like  Knox  and  Major, 
and  indeed  like  Mary  of  Guise,  pities  "  the  poor  labourers  of 
the  ground,  ...  in  more  servitude  than  were  the  children  of 
Israel  jn  Egypt."  He  proposes  that  whereas,  according  to  Mary 
of  Guise,  the  peasants  kept  their  holdings  but  for  five  years,  they 
now  should  have  long  leases  at  the  same  rents,  and  the  tithes 
so   far  as  not  "set  to  the  landlords."     Now,  just  as   persecution 


HOPE   OF   SOCIAL   REFORMS.  23 

was  at  the  moment  as  cruel  in  Protestant  England  as  in  Catholic 
Scotland,  so  the  greed  of  landlords  was  as  great.  The  insurrec- 
tions of  1549  in  England  were  mainly  due  to  the  recent  inclosures 
of  commons  by  landlords,  who  "  frequently  let  their  lands  at  an 
advanced  rent  to  '  leasemongers ' "  (like  the  larger  Highland  tacks- 
men) "  or  middle-men,  who  on  their  part  oppressed  the  farmer 
and  cottager  that  they  might  indemnify  and  benefit  themselves."^ 
But  Henderson,  like  Knox  and  Latimer,  was  sanguine  enough 
to  hope  for  a  more  tolerable  social  condition  as  a  result  of  a 
purer  Christian  doctrine.  But  while  it  was  easy  to  be  godly  as 
regards  dogmas  and  ceremonies,  and  not  impossible  to  punish 
sexual  vices,  the  Reformers  did  not  succeed  in  softening  the 
hearts  and  subduing  the  avarice  of  men.  Henderson  hoped  that 
the  poor  might  Hve  "as  substantial  commoners,  not  miserable 
cottars,  charged  daily  to  war  and  to  slay  their  neighbours  at 
their  own  expense."  So  far  the  union  of  the  crowns  was  destined 
to  fulfil  his  dream  :  Border  raids  were  diminished  and  ceased. 
He  also  desired  the  restoration  of  the  old  almshouses  and  hos- 
pitals, decayed  under  the  greedy  cadets  of  noble  houses,  who 
for  long  had  almost  monopolised  the  best  benefices.  Many 
parish  churches  were  "  rent  or  falling  down "  j^  the  most  ignorant 
and  cheapest  clergy  held  the  cures.  The  wealth  of  the  benefices 
ought  to  be  expended  on  rebuilding  the  churches  and  securing 
adequate  ministers,  while  bishops  ought  to  maintain  free  schools 
in  the  chief  towns.- 

Not  much  is  known  of  this  Henderson,  who  was  a  Scot- 
tish informant  of  William  Cecil.  But  his  book,  which  he  was 
anxious  to  print,  proves  that  Reformers  of  his  stamp  ex- 
pected social  as  well  as  religious  reform  from  Protestantism, 
union,  and  the  abandonment  of  "  the  bloody  league "  with 
France.  To  such  Scots,  when  sincere  and  disinterested,  we  can 
no  longer  refuse  the  name  of  patriots.  The  whole  policy  of 
Mary  of  Guise  tended  to  increase  their  number  and  influence. 
Since  de  la  Bastie's  head  swung  by  its  long  locks  at  a  Bor- 
derer's saddle-bow,  the  Scots  had  ever  resisted  the  intrusion  of 
foreigners  into  places  of  power.  Mary  of  Guise,  nevertheless, 
made  de  Rubay  chancellor  under  Huntly,  whose  place  became  but 
nominal.  Huntly's  history  is  complex  and  obscure.  We  have 
seen  that,  after  being  taken  at  Pinkie,  he  either  escaped  or  broke 
parole  to  return  to  England  after  a  visit  to  Scotland.      While  he 


24  THE   FRENCH    UNPOPULAR. 

was  in  England,  de  Selve  thought  him  double-faced  (December 
1548).^  In  Scotland  he  showed  duplicity,  trying  to  keep  touch 
with  both  parties.*  He,  with  Argyll,  was  expected  to  keep  down 
Highland  disorders,  to  "  pass  upon  the  Clan  Cameron,"  while 
Argyll  "  passed  upon  "  Clan  Ranald.^  Later,  according  to  Lesley, 
he  was  commanded  to  bring  the  Macdonalds  of  Moydart  into 
subjection.  He  was  deserted  by  his  Clan  Chattan  allies,  in 
revenge  for  his  execution  of  their  captain,  Mackintosh,  and  his 
expedition  failed.  He  was  then  imprisoned  in  Edinburgh  Castle, 
was  deprived  of  the  earldom  of  Murray,  and  was  sentenced  to 
five  years  of  exile,  though  this  punishment  was  remitted.  Huntly 
was  regarded  as  the  champion  of  the  old  faith ;  but,  both  under 
the  Regent  and  her  daughter,  he  was  untrustworthy,  was  con- 
stantly "put  at,"  and  finally  destroyed. 

Mary  of  Guise,  as  Lesley  declares,  "  neglected  almost  all  the  Scots 
nobles,"  and  admitted  only  de  Rubay,  d'Oysel,  Bonot,  and  other 
Frenchmen  to  her  counsels.^  The  most  fortunate  occurrences  of 
these  years  were  the  establishment  of  peace  on  the  Borders,  and 
the  delimitation  of  the  Debatable  Land.'''  Despite  these  arrange- 
ments (which  were  previous  to  the  assumption  of  regency  by  Mary 
of  Guise)  many  Borderers  were  under  bands  to  England.  Such 
were  the  Elliots,  Armstrongs,  Glendinnings,  and  Irvings.^  A  Parlia- 
ment held  at  Edinburgh  in  June  1555  throws  some  light  on  the 
condition  of  the  country.  Among  evil  deeds  noted  and  repressed 
are  the  eating  of  flesh  in  Lent,  and  the  revels  of  Robin  Hood,  and 
of  Queens  of  the  May,  and  "  women  or  others  about  summer  trees 
singing."  The  Protestants  whose  Lenten  beef  and  mutton  were 
cut  off  could  scarcely  be  mollified  by  this  repression  of  sports  in 
essence  older  than  Christianity.  Vengeance  was  denounced  on 
political  gossips  who  blamed  the  French  in  Scotland.  A  "  Revoca- 
tion" by  Mary  of  grants  in  her  minority,  made  on  April  25  at 
Fontainebleau,  in  the  usual  form,  was  recorded.  In  May  1556, 
after  the  marriage  of  Mary  Tudor  and  Philip  of  Spain  had  seemed 
to  strengthen  the  old  faith,  it  was  decided  that  an  inquest  into  all 
property  should  be  held,  as  the  basis  of  new  taxation.^  According 
to  Lesley,  the  Regent  was  moved  by  the  advice  of  her  Frenchmen, 
who  wished  to  reorganise  the  system  of  national  defence.  Some  of 
the  nobles  approved,  but  the  barons  totally  rejected  the  scheme. 
Three  hundred  of  them  met,  and  denounced  a  measure  contrary  to 
their  ancient  feudal  methods  of  military  service.     They  would  hear 


NEW    MEN    AND   KNOX.  2$ 

of  no  mercenary  forces,  no  germ  of  a  standing  army;  and  the 
Regent  gave  way.  Many  of  the  protesters  against  taxation  and  a 
standing  army  were  probably  much  incUned  to  the  EngUsh  party. 
Hence,  in  part,  their  opposition  to  the  only  scheme  which 
would  enable  Scotland  to  put  regularly  drilled  musketeers  into 
the  field.  In  this  Parliament  the  traitor  Brunston,  Balnaves,  and 
William  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange  were  pardoned,  and  restored  to  their 
estates.  This  was  a  measure  of  conciliation.  Throughout  de  Selve's 
despatches,  and  despite  a  letter  of  Mary  of  Guise,  speaking  well  of 
Chatelherault  and  the  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews,  we  recognise 
friction  and  jealousy  between  her  and  the  Hamiltons.  She  was 
therefore  anxious  to  gain  over  the  Protestant  party  to  her  cause, 
and  thus  there  was  a  lull  in  persecution  for  heresy. 

The  days  of  Brunston,  Angus,  and  Sir  George  Douglas  were 
nearly  ended.  New  hands,  Cecil  and  Lethington,  were  weaving  the 
tangled  web  of  faith  and  policy.  Among  these  the  most  vigorous 
was  Knox,  whose  biography  for  this  period  must  be  summarised. 
He  had  gone  to  England,  as  we  saw,  when  released  from  the  galleys 
in  1549.  Under  Henry  VHI.  he  had  regarded  the  English  Church 
as  little  better  than  the  Roman.  Under  Somerset  and  Edward  VI. 
there  was  more  of  root-and-branch  work.  Fiery  "  licensed  preachers  " 
were  needed  by  the  Government,  so  Knox  was  licensed.  He  "was 
left  to  his  own  devices,  and  was  permitted  to  introduce  into  an 
English  town "  (Berwick)  "  a  form  of  religious  service  after  the 
model  of  the  most  advanced  Swiss  reformers."  ^°  In  Berwick  he 
became  the  director  of  a  spiritual  hypochondriac,  wife  of  Richard 
Bowes,  an  Enghsh  gentleman  of  good  family.  His  visits  to  her 
"  gave  rise  to  public  gossip  " ;  but  the  older  Knox  grew,  the  younger 
did  he  like  his  wives  to  be,  and  probably  the  eyes  of  Mrs  Bowes' 
daughter  Marjory  were  as  attractive  to  him  as  the  godly  perplex- 
ities of  her  mother.  At  all  events  he  later  wedded  the  daughter, 
Marjory,  when  he  was  verging  on  fifty.  In  1551  he  went  to 
Newcastle  and  took  part  in  the  editing  of  the  Second  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  VI.  He  had  already,  at  Newcastle,  preached 
to  a  distinguished  audience  against  the  mass.  As  Mr  Hume  Brown 
says,  "  his  method  of  procedure  was  arbitrary  in  the  highest  degree, 
and  by  a  similar  handling  of  texts  any  fanatic  could  make  good  his 
wildest  visions."  But  underlying  the  logic  based  on  detached  texts 
was  his  fundamental  idea,  "that  rites  and  ceremonies  were  but  so 
many  barriers  between  the  soul  of  man  and  God."     This  notion  may 


26  KNOX   IN   ENGLAND. 

be  true  in  certain  ages,  and  of  certain  men.  Of  other  men  and 
other  ages  it  is  not  true ;  and  even  Knox  admitted  the  rites  of 
baptism  and  of  the  Holy  Communion.  Meanwhile  he  already  dis- 
played his  unparalleled  candour  and  energy  in  political  harangues 
from  the  pulpit.  The  reforming  Somerset  fell  beneath  the  axe 
guided  by  Warwick  (Northumberland),  as  the  reforming  Warwick 
(actually  a  Catholic)  was  more  deservedly  to  fall  in  his  turn.  Knox 
even  denounced,  whether  privately  or  in  public  seems  uncertain, 
the  execution  of  Somerset.^^  In  1551  he  became  a  royal  chaplain  : 
his  stipend  was  but  ^40  per  annum.  Northumberland,  perhaps  to 
bridle  Knox,  offered  him  the  bishopric  of  Rochester.  "What 
moved  me  to  refuse  ? "  he  asked  Mrs  Bowes  a  year  or  two  later, 
and  answered,  "  Assuredly  the  foresight  of  evils  to  come."  Whether 
he  alluded  to  his  gift  of  prophecy,  or  only  to  an  obvious  inference 
from  what  would  follow  on  the  death  of  Edward  VI.,  a  sickly  boy, 
may  have  been  left  to  the  decision  of  Mrs  Bowes. ^^  "  At  a  later 
period,"  remarks  Mr  Hume  Brown,  "  he  set  down  this  refusal  to  his 
disapproval  of  bishops." 

Meanwhile  his  energies  were  directed  against  the  custom  of 
kneeling  at  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist.  He  appears  to 
have  had  a  hand  in  the  preparation  of  the  "  Black  Rubric," 
and,  that  once  inserted,  he  had  "  a  good  opinion "  of  the 
Second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  That  good  opinion  later 
changed  into  contempt.^^  In  February  1553  he  was  offered,  and 
declined,  the  vicarage  of  All  Hallows,  in  Bread  Street.  Presently 
came  the  conspiracy  of  Northumberland  to  secure  the  throne,  on 
Edward's  death,  for  his  daughter-in-law.  Lady  Jane  Grey.  The 
hearts  of  the  people  of  England  were  with  Mary  Tudor,  her  cause 
prevailed,  and  Knox  found  that  his  "  foresight  of  troubles  to  come  " 
was  justified.  He  had  denounced  Northumberland,  from  the  pulpit, 
before  Edward  VI.  as  Achitophel,  Paulet  as  Shebna,  and  somebody 
unidentified  as  Judas.'^  Mr  Hume  Brown  suggests  that  Northum- 
berland tolerated  these  harangues  because  he  had  no  party  except 
in  the  extreme  Protestant  body.  Tolerated  Knox  was,  and  so  he 
was  confirmed  in  the  habit  of  using  the  pulpit  as  the  platform. 
This  habit  he  carried  into  Scotland,  and  it  practically  meant  that 
preachers,  in  a  kind  of  inspired  way,  and  with  the  sanction  of  their 
own  and  their  flock's  belief  in  their  inspiration,  were  to  guide  the 
foreign  and  domestic  policy  of  the  State.  These  pretensions  are 
incompatible  with  political  freedom.     Through  the  reigns  of  Mary, 


KNOX   STIRS   UP   ENGLISH    PROTESTANTS.  2/ 

James  VI.,  Charles  I.,  and  Charles  II.  they  were  persisted  in,  till 
the  Stewarts  and  the  Hierocrats  broke  each  other,  and  were  broken, 
and  the  pulpiteers  slowly  became  content  to  know  their  place. 

Under  Mary  Tudor,  Knox  did  not  hold  his  post  and  accept 
martyrdom.  He  went  abroad  in  January  1554,  and  at  Geneva 
and  Zurich  consulted  Calvin  and  Bullinger  on  certain  cases  of 
conscience.  Is  obedience  to  be  rendered  to  a  magistrate  who 
enforces  idolatry  and  condemns  true  religion  ?  This  is  a  hand- 
some example  of  Knox's  method.  After  1560  a  Scot  who  thought 
that  the  old  faith  was  "  true  religion "  was  to  be  compelled  by 
severe  penal  laws  to  "obey  the  magistrate" — the  Presbyterian 
magistrate.  Our  beliefs  as  to  what  is  "  trew "  are  subjective  and 
uncontrollable.  But  Knox  believed,  with  a  faith  that  moved 
political  mountains,  that  his  religion  was  the  only  true  religion. 
Much  of  his  power  lay  in  faith  so  absolute,  so  devoid  of  shadow  of 
turning.  He  asked  other  questions,  but  this  of  godly  resistance  to 
the  idolatrous  magistrate  was  the  most  important.  Calvin  and 
Bullinger  put  the  questions  by ;  for  Calvin  they  had  not  yet  risen 
into  the  sphere  of  political  politics.  For  the  moment  Knox  bade 
the  faithful,  whom  he  had  left  to  the  tender  mercies  of  Mary  Tudor, 
"not  to  be  revengers  of  their  own  cause,"  "not  to  hate  with  any 
carnal  hatred  these  blind,  cruel,  and  malicious  tyrants."  In  "a 
spiritual  hatred "  they  might  freely  indulge.^'^  Knox's  hatred  of 
Riccio,  Mary,  Mary  of  Guise,  and  his  other  opponents  was,  doubt- 
less, not  "carnal"  but  spiritual.  The  worldly  eye  does  not  easily 
detect  any  essential  distinction  in  the  two  forms  of  deadly  detesta- 
tion. Returning  to  Dieppe,  he  sent  a  mission  to  "  the  professors  of 
God's  truth  in  England."  ^^  In  this  tract  Knox,  after  lashing  Mary 
Tudor  with  Biblical  parallels,  exclaims,  "  God,  for  his  great  mercy's 
sake,  stir  up  some  Phineas,  Elias,  or  Jehu,  that  the  blood  of  abomin- 
able idolaters  may  pacify  God's  wrath,  that  it  consume  not  the  whole 
multitude."  ^''  Jehu  murdered  Jezebel,  and  Knox's  prayer  is  a  pro- 
vocation to  murder.  Did  Knox  forget  Hosea  i.  4  ?  "  The  Lord 
said,  ...  for  yet  a  little  while,  and  I  will  avenge  the  blood  of 
Jezreel "  (the  scene  of  the  deed)  "  upon  the  house  of  Jehu."  As 
his  most  recent  biographer  says,  "  In  casting  such  a  pamphlet  into 
England,  at  the  time  he  did,  he  indulged  his  indignation,  in  itself 
so  natural  under  the  circumstances,  at  no  personal  risk,  while  he 
seriously  compromised  those  who  had  the  strongest  claims  on  his 
most  generous  consideration."  ^^     The  fires  of  Smithfield  soon  after 


28  KNOX   AND   CALVIN   (1555). 

blazed  out.  It  was  easy,  and  perhaps  natural,  for  opponents  to  say 
that  Knox  had  hghted  them.  He  had  described  the  Queen  of 
England  as  "  an  open  traitress,"  had  spoken  of  what  would  have 
occurred  if  she  "  had  been  sent  to  hell  before  these  days,"  had 
called  for  a  Jehu,  and  certainly  had  compromised  the  flock  which 
he  had  abandoned.  In  uttering  provocatives  to,  and  applauses  of, 
political  murders,  Knox  of  course  spoke  as  a  man  of  his  age. 
Greece  had  applauded  Harmodius  and  Aristogiton,  murderers  of 
a  tyrant.  Elijah  had  impelled  Jehu,  the  murderer  of  an  idolater. 
Catholics  and  Protestants  at  this  period  believed  that  they  had 
Biblical  and  classical  warrant  for  the  dagger.  But  there  was  a 
certain  shamefacedness,  as  a  rule,  in  clerical  abettors  of  murder. 
Knox,  for  his  part,  is  frank  enough.  That  Christ  came  to  abolish 
such  deeds  of  blood  is  no  part  of  the  reformed  Christianity  of 
Knox. 

He  later  moved  to  Frankfort,  and  took  a  vigorous  part  in 
the  quarrels  of  the  English  Protestant  refugees  as  to  their  Church 
service.  A  congregation,  who  sat  under  Cox,  insisted  on  uttering 
the  responses,  or  "  mummuling "  as  Knox  called  it ;  and  now  he 
discovered  even  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  "  things 
superstitious,  impure,  unclean,  and  imperfect."  ^^  In  the  end  some 
of  Cox's  party  denounced  Knox  to  the  Frankfort  magistrates  for  the 
treason  to  the  Kaiser,  Philip,  and  Mary  contained  in  his  '  Godly 
Admonition  '  to  the  faithful  in  England.  He  had  drawn  a  trenchant 
historical  parallel  between  the  Kaiser  and  the  Emperor  Nero. 
Knox  had  to  leave  Frankfort.  He  arrived  in  Geneva  in  April 
1555.  There  he  found  Calvin  wielding  the  full  powers  of  a 
theocracy.  Outlanders  had  been  enfranchised :  the  native  vote 
was  swamped  ;  the  ministers  could  excommunicate,  with  all  the 
civil  consequences  of  a  State  "  boycott,"  "  virtually  implying  ban- 
ishment." Such,  or  very  similar,  was  the  condition  to  which  Knox 
and  his  successors  endeavoured  to  reduce  Scotland.  And  now, 
after  harvest  in  1555,  to  Scotland  Knox  returned,  at  the  request  of 
Mrs  Bowes.  He  probably  did  not  know  himself  how  safe  was  this 
venture  into  the  native  country  where,  nine  years  ago,  his  peril  had 
been  extreme.  Despite  the  execution  of  Wallace,  various  causes 
had  contributed  to  keep  down  persecution.  It  was  not  the  policy 
of  Archbishop  Hamilton.  The  ambitions  of  his  House,  disap- 
pointed for  the  time  by  the  deposition  of  Chatelherault  from  the 
regency,  would  not  be  forwarded  by  the  unpopularity  that  cruelties 


KNOX   AND   LETHINGTON    (1555).  29 

must  arouse.  Mary  of  Guise,  for  her  part,  was  trying  to  conciliate 
the  Protestants. 

In  1549,  and  in  1552,  the  Church  had  been  talcing  shame 
to  herself  for  the  evil  lives  of  clerics  :  a  Reformation  from  within 
was  being  attempted.  The  Catechism  of  Archbishop  Hamilton 
was  issued  early  in  1552,  after  the  Provincial  Council  in  January 
of  that  year.  It  is  "a  fine  piece  of  composition,  full  of  a 
spirit  of  gentleness  and  charity,"  says  Mr  Hill  Burton.  The 
tolerance  of  tone,  and  the  preference  for  a  Christian  life  as  more 
essential  than  disputes  on  Christian  mysteries,  are  worthy  of  Ninian 
Winzet.-^  In  these  years,  then,  the  Reformers,  such  as  Harlaw 
(originally  an  Edinburgh  tailor)  and  Willock  (an  Ayrshire  man) 
ventured  back  into  Scotland  and  held  forth  in  private.  "  And  last 
came  John  Knox,  in  the  end  of  harvest."  Lodging  at  Edin- 
burgh with  John  Syme,  "  that  notable  man  of  God,"  Knox  ex- 
horted secretly.  In  a  Mrs  Barron  Knox  found  another  Mrs 
Bowes, — "  she  had  a  troubled  conscience."  Like  Edward  Irving, 
and  other  popular  preachers,  Knox  had  enormous  influence  over 
women.  He  seems  to  have  been  unwearied  in  listening  to  the 
long  and  complex  chapter  of  their  spiritual  sorrows,  to  which  the 
Catholic  confessors  probably  lent  an  accustomed  and  uninterested 
hearing.  At  this  juncture  even  masculine  consciences  were 
"affrayed"  as  to  the  propriety  of  bowing  down  in  the  house  of 
Rimmon,  and  going  to  mass. 

To  discuss  this  question  of  conformity,  Knox  dined  with 
Erskine  of  Dun,  Willock,  and  William  Maitland,  younger  of 
Lethington.  Here  we  first  meet  this  captivating  and  extra- 
ordinary man,  a  modern  of  the  moderns,  cool,  witty,  ironical,, 
subtle,  and  unconvinced ;  a  man  of  to-day,  moving  among 
fanatics  and  assassins,  and  using  both,  without  relish  as  without 
scruple.  Knox  decided  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  a  Christian 
man  to  present  himself  to  that  idol,  the  mass.  It  was  argued, 
perhaps  by  Lethington,  that  the  thing  had  New  Testament 
warrant.  The  probatory  text  was  Acts  xxi.  18-27.  On  St  Paul's 
arrival  at  Jerusalem,  after  a  missionary  expedition  among  the 
Gentiles,  St  James  pointed  out  to  him  that  many  Jews  professed 
Christian  principles,  but  remained  "  zealous  for  the  law."  Paul  was 
accused  of  wishing  them  to  "  forsake  Moses "  and  disuse  circum- 
cision. Would  Paul  give  a  practical  proof  that  he  had  not  broken 
with  the  old  Law  ?     Paul  therefore  ritually  "  purified  "  himself  with 


30  KNOX   AND   MARY   OF  GUISE   (1556). 

four  shaven  men  under  a  vow.  With  them  he  entered  the  temple 
"until  that  an  offering  should  be  offered  for  every  one  of  them." 
Apparently  the  argument  was  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass 
answered  to  this  offering  of  "  the  shaven  sort "  of  Hebrew  votaries. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  Paul  was  mobbed  by  the  Jews.  Knox, 
evading  the  "  offerings  "  (the  essence  of  the  parallel),  replied  that 
"  to  pay  vows  .  .  .  was  never  idolatry,"  but  the  mass  ivas  idolatry. 
"Secondly,"  said  he,  "I  greatly  doubt  whether  either  James's 
commandment  or  Paul's  obedience  proceeded  from  the  Holy 
Ghost."  For,  in  fact,  Paul  was  mobbed,  which  showed  "that 
God  approved  not  that  means  of  reconciliation,  but  rather  that 
he  plainly  declared  that  evil  should  not  be  done  that  good  might 
come  of  it."  Lethington  had  an  obvious  reply.  First,  by  Knox's 
own  showing,  evil,  in  this  case,  was  no^  done.  Next,  Stephen 
was  worse  handled  than  Paul ;  did  such  results  prove  God's 
displeasure  ?  Lastly,  by  what  right  did  Knox  determine  when 
the  apostles  were,  and  when  they  were  not,  inspired  ?  However, 
Maitland  is  not  reported  to  have  pressed  these  answers,  and 
conformity  began  to  be  disused  by  the  godly.  Knox  now  visited 
some  country  houses.  He  stayed  with  Erskine  of  Dun,  and  with 
old  Sir  James  Sandilands  at  Calder  House.  Here  he  met  Lord 
Erskine  (later  sixth  Earl  of  Mar),  Lord  Lome,  who  became  fifth 
Earl  of  Argyll  in  1558,  and  the  Bastard  of  Scotland,  Lord  James 
Stewart,  Prior  of  St  Andrews  and  Macon,  later  Earl  of  Murray, 
and  at  this  time  a  man  of  twenty-three  or  twenty-four  years  of  age. 
Till  Christmas,  Knox  lectured  in  Edinburgh,  then  in  Kyle,  Ayr, 
at  the  house  of  Glencairn,  Finlayston,  and  elsewhere  about  the 
country,  ministering  the  Sacrament  in  the  Geneva  way.  Conse- 
quently he  was  summoned  to  appear  for  trial  in  the  Dominicans' 
church  in  Edinburgh  on  May  15,  1556.  But  "that  diet  held  not." 
Erskine  of  Dun,  with  divers  other  gentlemen,  convened  at  Edin- 
burgh, and  the  bishops,  as  Knox  says,  either  "  perceived  informality 
in  their  own  proceedings,  or  feared  danger  to  ensue  upon  their 
extremity,  it  was  unknown  to  us."  The  latter  alternative  is  the 
more  probable.  After  successful  sermons,  Knox  sent  a  letter  to 
the  Regent,  who  showed  it  to  the  Cardinal's  nephew,  James  Beaton, 
Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  saying,  in  mockage,  "  Please  you,  my  Lord, 
to  read  a  pasquil."  The  letter  had  been  conciliatory,  for  Knox, 
who,  irritated  by  the  Regent's  scorn,  published  it  anew,  with 
truculent  additions.     Nothing  galled  him  like  a  gibe.^^     Knox  now 


STATE   OF   PUBLIC   OPINION.  3I 

sent  Mrs  Bowes,  "  and  his  wife  Marjory,",  abroad ;  visited  the  Earl 
of  Argyll  of  the  1000  crowns;  then  crossed  to  Dieppe  in  July  1556, 
and  so  proceeded  to  Geneva,  to  resume  his  care  of  the  English 
congregation.  Here  we  may  glance  at  the  process  of  evolution 
by  which  Protestantism  was  increasing  its  hold  upon  Scotland. 
Between  the  release  of  Knox  from  the  galleys  and  his  visit  to  his 
native  country  in  1 555-1 556,  the  new  movement  had  advanced 
rapidly.  Progress  was  due  in  part  to  the  arrival  of  preaching 
refugees  from  England,  and  of  Knox ;  in  part  to  the  toleration 
forced  on  the  Government,  or  congenial  to  Mary  of  Guise  ;  in  part 
to  the  death  or  decline  of  the  old  intriguers  like  Glencairn  and 
Argyll,  with  the  advent  of  a  younger  generation. 

Among  the  middle  and  lower  classes,  too,  the  leaven  of  reform 
was  working  busily.  Mr  Carlyle  has  eloquently  complained  that  no 
clear  view  of  this  travail  is  given  by  historians.  When  he  desires 
to  see  and  hear  the  spiritual  ferment  of  a  grave,  ardent,  and  deeply 
moved  people  ;  to  watch  the  tokens  of  hearts  convinced  of  sin  ;  and 
the  stir  of  indignation  against  a  secular  imposture,  the  new  joy  of 
men  between  whose  hearts  and  God  the  barrier  of  ceremony  is 
broken, — he  is  told  a  tale  of  scandal  in  high  life.  He  is  put  off  with 
the  amours  and  hates  of  Darnley,  Riccio,  Mary,  and  Bothwell. 

In  fact,  while  human  beings  are  of  concern  to  human  beings,  that 
tragedy  will  be  the  subject  of  interest  and  dispute.  There  are  here 
terrible  and  sorrowful  facts,  facts  in  great  numbers,  if  not  precisely 
recorded.  But,  as  to  the  weightier  matter,  the  development  of 
national  character,  no  man  was  minutely  watching  and  recording  the 
veering  breezes  of  public  "  feeling  "  on  the  eve  of  the  Reformation. 
Knox  himself  was  abroad,  though  his  letters  contain  valuable  evid- 
ence. Two  relics  of  the  scanty  popular  literature  born  in  that  age 
of  strife  lend  themselves  to  our  inquiry.  The  first  is  '  The  Com- 
playnt  of  Scotland'  (1549),  a  treatise  of  which  only  some  four 
copies  have  survived — a  proof,  perhaps,  of  its  popularity.^^  The 
authorship  is  uncertain ;  much  of  the  work,  indeed,  is  borrowed 
from  the  French  of  Alain  Chartier.  The  political  reflections,  how- 
ever, are  original  and  interest  us.  With  a  great  parade  of  learning 
the  author  laments  the  evils  of  the  times.  The  English,  though 
successful,  are  merely  sent  to  punish  Scotland's  sins  :  they  are  the 
hangmen  of  Providence.  The  "  neutrals  "  and  the  "  assured  Scots  " 
are  equally  condemned.  The  clergy  are  advised  to  take  up  arms 
in  defence  of  their  country ;  their  slaughter  at  Pinkie  was,  however, 


32  POPULAR   LITERATURE. 

discouraging.  Though  the  writer  is  not- one  of  "the  godly,"  and 
does  not  desire  to  break  with  the  Church,  he  prophesies  that 
"  schism  shall  never  cease,  for  no  statutes,  laws,  punishments,  ban- 
ishing, burning,  nor  torment,  .  .  .  till  the  clergy  reform  their  own 
abuses."  As  for  the  nobles,  the  author  declares  that,  whatever  plan 
may  be  decided  on  in  Privy  Council,  is  known  at  Berwick  within 
twenty  hours,  and  at  London  in  three  days  later.  Probably  most 
men  guessed  that  Sir  George  Douglas,  or  some  other  traitor,  gave 
the  most  secret  intelligence  to  Ormistoun  or  Brunston.  In  their 
hands,  we  know,  it  reached  Berwick  instantly.     The  rest  was  easy. 

The  sorrows  and  oppressions  of  the  labourers  of  the  ground  are 
reckoned  to  the  charge  of  the  nobles,  but  the  labourers  themselves 
are  unworthy  of  liberty.  They  frequent  noisy  public  meetings ;  all 
shout  at  once ;  only  the  noisiest  is  heard  and  followed.  The  author 
(who  has  an  odd  interlude  of  valuable  notes  on  popular  songs  and 
tales)  is  a  patriot  first,  a  deadly  foe  of  England,  a  preacher  of  the 
duty  of  imitating  Bruce.  Only  in  the  second  place  does  he  care 
for  the  religious  question,  and  then  merely  as  it  is  concerned  with  a 
good  life,  not  with  dogma  and  metaphysics.  To  free  Scotland  first 
of  all,  and  then  to  care  for  religious  and  social  reforms,  is  his  desire. 
"  You  are  so  divided  among  yourselves,"  he  cries,  "  that  not  one 
trusts  another."  He  might  almost  have  added,  that  not  one  de- 
served to  be  trusted.  We  shall  see  how  lack  of  confidence  affected 
the  action  of  Knox  himself. 

While  the  'Complaynt'  utters  the  ideas  of  a  patriot  of  culture, 
the  '  Gude  and  Godlie  Ballatis  '  reflect  the  emotions  and  aspira- 
tions of  the  ardent  middle -class  reformers.  These  poems,  in 
great  part  hymns  translated  from  the  German ;  for  the  rest, 
religious  parodies  of  popular  songs,  with  a  few  satirical  ballads 
on  the  Churchmen,  are  attributed  to  the  Wedderburns  of  Dundee.^^ 
Probably  the  clergy  reckoned  the  book  (of  which  no  copy  in 
the  original  edition  is  known)  among  the  slanderous  ballads 
prohibited  by  Arran.  The  earliest  date  of  the  ballatis  (in  broad- 
sheets, perhaps)  may  be  between  1542  and  1546.  Others  are 
obviously  later.  But  Scottish  Protestantism  had  not  yet  come  to 
regard  with  distrust  and  disapproval  such  a  phrase  as  "  Jesus,  Son 
of  Mary."     On  the  other  hand,  we  read, — 

**  Next  Him  to  lufe  his  Mother  fair, 
With  steidfast  hart,  for  ever  mair, 
Scho  bure  the  byrth,  freed  us  from  cair." 


GODLY   BALLADS.  33 

But  prayer  to  saints  was  denounced. 

"To  pray  to  Peter,  James,  or  Johne, 
Our  saulis  to  saif,  power  haif  they  none, 
For  that  belangis  to  Christ  allone, 
He  deit  thairfoir,  he  deit  thairfoir." 

In  these  times,  the  struggle  was  between  Animism  and  Theism. 
Perhaps  from  almost  the  beginning  of  religion  this  conflict  has 
existed.  Deity  seems  abstract  and  remote  ;  the  souls  of  the  an- 
cestral or  saintly  dead  are  familiar,  kindly,  and  near  at  hand. 
Hence  saint-worship,  which  the  Reformers  were  forsaking  for  God, 
revealed  and  incarnated  in  Christ.  The  animistic  theory  of  Purga- 
tory, with  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  the  extortions  practised  in  that 
cause,  was  also  a  stumbling-block. 

"  Of  the  fals  fyre  of  Purgatorie, 
Is  nocht  left  in  ane  sponk  : 
Thairfoir  sayis  Gedde,  'woe  is  me, 
Gone  is  Preist,  Freir  and  Monk. 

The  reik  [smoke]  sa  wounder  deir  thay  solde, 

For  money,  gold  and  landis : 
Quhill  half  the  ryches  on  the  molde 

Is  seasit  in  thair  handis.'  " 

These  lines,  written  after  1560,  express  the  practical  grievance:  the 
wealth  of  the  clergy,  based  on  the  payments  for  masses  for  the 
dead.     "  Works,"  too,  were  condemned. 

"Thair  is  na  dedis  that  can  save  me, 
Thocht  thay  be  never  sa  greit  plentie." 

Not  that  a  good  life  is  indifferent. 

"  Fyre  without  heit  can  not  be, 
Faith  will  have  warkis  of  suretie, 
Als  fast  as  may  convenientlie 
Be  done,  but  moir." 

So  far  we  have  spiritual  songs,  and  a  satisfying  new  theology, 
grounded  in  justification  by  faith,  with  faith  itself  as  the  spontaneous 
and  inevitable  source  of  righteous  conduct.  But  the  "  rascal  multi- 
tude," as  apart  from  the  minority  of  the  earnestly  godly,  was  reached 
and  inflamed  by  parodies  of  such  popular  songs  as 

"Johne,  come  kis  me  now,  The  Lord  thy  God  I  am, 

Johne,  come  kis  me  now,  That  Johne  dois  the  call, 

Johne,  come  kis  me  by  and  by,  Johne  representit  man 

And  male  no  moir  adow.  Be  grace  celestiall." 

VOL.    II.  C 


34  KNOX    RECALLED   TO    SCOTLAND   (1557). 

A  chant  of  triumph   runs  thus, — 

"  Ye  schaw  us  the  heid  of  Sanct  Johne, 
With  the  arm  of  Sanct  Geill  [Giles]  ; 
To  rottin  banis  ye  gart  us  kneill, 
And  sanit  us  from  neck  to  heill. 
The  nycht  is  neir  gone." 

Such  were  the  ideas  of  the  middle -class  reformers,  lyrically  ex- 
pressed, and  such  were  their  allurements  to  the  multitude,  who  were 
indignant  at  the  long  imposture,  as  they  deemed  it,  and  had  all  the 
joy  of  the  rabble  in  destroying  to-day  what  yesterday  they  had 
adored.  Such  hymns  may  have  been  sung  in  private  conventicles, 
as  at  the  house  of  Knox's  friend  Syme.  Meanwhile,  the  pious 
wives  and  mothers  were  already  choosing  directors,  putting  cases 
of  conscience,  and  adoring  preachers  who  claimed  gifts  of  pro- 
phetic inspiration.  The  middle  classes  and  the  populace  being 
thus  prepared,  the  godly  nobles,  as  we  saw,  had  been  attending  the 
ministrations  of  Knox. 

It  would  appear  that  they  already  contemplated  making  a 
push  for  their  ideas  by  force.  At  Stirling,  on  March  10,  1557, 
a  letter  was  written  and  despatched  to  Knox  at  Geneva.  It 
was  signed  by  Glencairn,  by  Lome,  Erskine  (not  of  Dun,  but 
Lord  Erskine,  keeper  of  Edinburgh  Castle),  and  Lord  James 
Stewart.  Knox  was  informed  that  the  faithful  not  only  desired 
his  presence,  but  "  will  be  ready  to  jeopardy  lives  and  goods 
in  the  forward  setting  of  the  glory  of  God "  ;  persecution,  they 
said,  was  slack.  The  bearers,  Knox's  friends  Syme  and  Barron, 
would  say  more.^*  The  letter  clearly  indicates  that  Glencairn, 
Argj'U,  Erskine  (later  the  Regent  Mar),  and  the  Lord  James  were 
designing  a  political  movement,  and  were  ready  to  take  all  con- 
sequences if  Knox  would  join  them.  Calvin  and  the  rest  urged 
him  to  go.  He  promised  to  come  "  with  reasonable  expedition," 
but  did  not  reach  Dieppe  till  October  24.  Though  Morton  de- 
clared that  Knox  "never  feared  the  face  of  man,"  his  long  delay 
showed  no  zest  for  his  enterprise.  By  the  end  of  October  things 
in  Scotland  were  no  longer  as  they  had  been  in  March.  There 
were  wars  and  rumours  of  war.  Knox  carefully  records  certain 
portents :  one  of  them  is  of  the  kind  noted  by  Livy  and  the 
heathen  augurs.  There  were  a  comet,  lightning,  and  a  two-headed 
calf,  which  was  presented  to  the  Regent  by  one  of  the  godly  house 
of  Ormistoun.     But  Mary  of  Guise,  with  horrid  levity,  "scripped" 


WEAK    WAR   WITH    ENGLAND   (1557).  35 

(sneered),  and  said,  "  It  is  but  a  common  thing."  And  Knox  goes 
on  :  "  The  war  began  in  the  end  of  harvest."  He  had,  two  pages 
before,  denounced  the  English  congregation  at  Frankfort  as  "  super- 
stitious." -^ 

Lesley  mentions  the  other  portents,  but  not  the  calf.  When 
safely  out  of  Scotland,  in  1556,  Knox  had  been  summoned  again, 
and  burned  in  efifigy  at  Edinburgh  Cross.  That  also  was  a 
"warning." 

The  war  that  had  been  plainly  indicated  by  a  comet  and  a  two- 
headed  calf  ran  its  feeble  course  in  the  autumn  of  1557.  In  a 
strife  between  France  and  Philip  of  Spain,  England  had  aided 
Philip  by  sending  troops  to  the  Low  Countries.  Philip  and  Mary 
Tudor,  doubtless  to  neutralise  Scotland,  arranged  meetings  of  Scots 
and  English  Commissioners  for  the  peace  of  the  Border.  They 
met  on  the  Stark  water  in  June  1557,  and  the  English  perceived 
that  the  Scots  dreaded  being  drawn  into  the  war  as  allies  of  France. 
Westmoreland  hinted  this  danger  to  Cassilis,  who  said,  "  By  the 
mass,  I  am  no  more  French  than  you  are  a  Spaniard.  I  told  you 
once,  in  my  lord  your  father's  house,  in  King  Henry  VIII.  his  time, 
that  we  would  die,  every  mother's  son  of  us,  rather  than  be  subjects 
unto  England.  Even  the  Hke  shall  you  find  us  to  keep  with 
France."  -*^  The  Bishop  of  Orkney,  and  Carnegie,  were  equally 
anxious  for  peace  between  Scotland  and  England,  and  Carnegie 
said  that,  "  as  far  as  we  know,"  the  Regent  was  of  the  same  mind. 
But  before  July  2  English  Borderers,  such  as  the  Grahams,  had 
broken  the  peace,  an  ordinary  event.  The  Bishop  of  Orkney  was 
still  full  of  peaceful  words  on  July  1 3  :  on  July  1 6  the  commissioners 
proclaimed  peace  at  Carlisle  Cross,  and  prorogued  their  meetings 
till  September  15.^''  However,  the  Scots  made  Border  raids, 
perhaps  in  reprisals  for  that  of  the  Grahams  of  Netherby,  before 
July  29.-*^  Home  was,  in  revenge,  defeated  at  Blackbreye.^^  Be- 
fore that  event  d'Oysel  had  fortified  Eyemouth,  as  a  counterpoise 
to  Berwick,  from  which  he  expected  to  be  attacked.  This  act  was 
in  the  teeth  of  the  last  treaty  with  England.  War  was  now  de- 
clared, but  at  Kelso,  Chatelherault,  Huntly,  Cassilis,  Argyll,  and 
the  rest  declined  to  cross  Tweed.  They  had  heard  of  Flodden. 
Knox,  Leslie,  and  Arran  himself  agree  in  making  this  refusal  the 
cause  of  hatred  between  the  Regent  and  her  nobles.  Lesley  de- 
clares that  they  now  began  to  make  the  reformed  religion  a 
stalking-horse  for  their  sedition  :  Knox  avers  that  "  the  Evangel  of 


36  PROTESTANT   RIOTS   (1557). 

Jesus  Christ  began  wondrously  to  flourish."  ^"^  Henry  II.  now  tried 
to  tighten  the  bonds  between  France  and  Scotland,  by  marrying 
the  Dauphin  to  Mary  Stuart,  and  events  in  Edinburgh  illustrate 
the  progress  made  by  the  Evangel. 

In  1542  and  1543  the  people  of  Edinburgh  had  been  notably 
constant  to  the  old  faith.  They  mobbed  a  Protestant  Dominican, 
a  preacher  of  Arran's,  and,  just  before  Arran's  return  to  Catholicism, 
they  protected  the  Black  Friars  Monastery  from  his  men.  But  now, 
in  September  1557,  the  image  of  the  patron  saint  of  "the  Mother 
Kirk  "  of  Edinburgh,  St  Giles',  was  stolen,  ducked  in  the  Nor'  Loch 
under  the  castle,  and  finally  burned.  Archbishop  Hamilton  bade 
the  town  replace  the  image,  and  the  town  council  appealed  against 
the  judgment.^^  This  occurred  a  year  before  the  great  riot  against 
St  Giles'  in  September  1558;  but  though  the  affair  of  September 
1557  was  less  public,  it  indicated  the  change  in  the  popular  humour. 
"The  images  were  stolen  away  in  all  parts  of  the  country,"  says 
Knox. ^2  To  us  representations  of  saints,  in  works  of  art,  are  merely 
works  of  art.  But  processions  in  which  the  images  were  carried,  and 
the  custom  of  kissing  such  relics  as  the  arm  of  St  Giles  in  its  silver 
case,  were  instances  of  mere  heathenism  and  idolatry  to  the  mind  of 
the  Reformers.  Thus  when  Knox,  several  months  after  being  in- 
vited, reached  Dieppe  in  October  24,  1557,  the  country  was  engaged, 
though  slackly,  in  war  with  England,  and  was  also  full  of  tumult — 
sacred  things  being  destroyed.  The  circumstances  do  not  suit  the 
scheme  indicated  in  the  invitation  to  Knox  given  on  March  10.  On 
arriving  at  Dieppe,  he  found  awaiting  him  "  two  letters  not  very  pleas- 
ing to  the  flesh,"  One  letter  informed  him  that  the  plan  of  March 
10  was  being  reconsidered.  The  other  was  from  a  gentleman  who 
said  that  in  none  of  the  planners  "  did  he  find  such  boldness  and 
constancy  as  was  requisite  for  such  an  enterprise."  Some  repented, 
some  were  "  partly  ashamed,"  others  "  were  able  to  deny  that  ever 
they  did  consent  to  any  such  purpose,  if  any  trial  or  question  should 
be  taken  thereof."  ^^  In  fact,  as  the  author  of  the  '  Complaynt '  had 
said,  no  man  could  trust  a  neighbour.  Knox  wrote  to  the  godly 
nobles,  complaining  of  their  usage  of  him.  He  said  that  the  nobles 
were  betraying  the  cause  and  the  realm  "  to  the  slavery  of  strangers," 
the  French.  "  I  am  not  ignorant  that  fearful  troubles  shall  ensue 
your  enterprise.  .  .  .  You  ought  to  hazard  your  own  lives,  be  it 
against  Kings  or  Emperors  "  (Dieppe,  October  27).  Mr  Hume  Brown 
infers  that  Knox  had  no  particular  desire  to  hazard  his  own  life.      "  At 


KNOX'S   SCRUPLES   AND   "BLAST."  37 

all  events,  Knox  certainly  made  the  most  of"  the  two  unofficial  letters. 
...  In  his  private  correspondence  we  have  another  and,  doubtless, 
a  more  adequate  account  of  the  various  motives  that  led  him  to  turn 
his  back  on  Scotland  at  this  time.  Thus,  next  spring  (March  16, 
1558),  he  wrote  to  Mrs  Guthrie,  "  If  any  object  I  followed  not  the 
counsel  which  I  give  to  others,  for  my  fleeing  the  country  declareth 
my  fear ;  I  answer,  I  bind  no  man  to  my  example."  A  month  later, 
he  declares  that  "  the  cause  of  my  stop  I  do  not  to  this  day  clearly 
understand.  I  most  suspect  my  own  wickedness."  At  Dieppe  ideas, 
perhaps,  he  thinks,  of  satanic  inspiration,  had  occurred  to  him.  "  I 
began  to  dispute  with  myself  as  follows  :  Shall  Christ,  the  author  of 
peace,  concord,  and  quietness,  be  preached  where  war  is  proclaimed, 
sedition  engendered,  and  tumults  appear  to  rise  ?  "  He  would  be- 
hold civil  war,  murder,  destruction.  Had  he  a  right  to  cause  this 
ruin,  to  rouse  these  passions,  in  the  name  of  the  Author  of  peace  on 
earth  and  goodwill  among  men?  These  cogitations  "did  trouble 
and  move  my  wicked  heart." 

He  remained  at  Dieppe  till  the  early  spring  of  1558,  writing 
long  letters  to  the  brethren  in  Scotland,  and  composing  his 
famous  'First  Blast  of  the  Trumpet  against  the  Monstrous  Regi- 
ment of  Women,'  especially  the  three  Maries.  No  moment  in 
Knox's  life  is  more  curious.  It  seems  that  he  was  not  always 
ready  to  die  for  his  beliefs,  and  the  half-consciousness  of  this  lack 
of  courage  caused  him  to  suspect  his  own  doubts  as  to  the  law- 
fulness of  raising  war  in  the  name  of  the  Prince  of  Peace. ^*  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Knox  would  probably  have  done  nothing  by  the  visit 
to  Scotland  which  he  declined  to  make  As  he  was  urging  the 
nobles,  from  Dieppe,  to  persist  in  their  perilous  enterprise,  Henry 
II.,  on  October  30,  was  writing  to  the  Queen-Regent  and  the  Estates 
to  hurry  on  the  marriage  between  Mary  and  the  Dauphin  Francis. 
Even  the  Lord  James,  and  Erskine  of  Dun,  came  into  a  project 
detested  by  Knox.  From  this  point  of  view,  he  ought  to  have 
hastened  to  the  scene  of  peril,  stirred  up  opposition  to  the  French 
marriage,  and  taken  his  share  of  danger.  He  was  content,  despite 
his  scruples,  to  "  bid  the  rest  keep  fighting."  They  took  his  advice, 
despite  the  current  negotiations  for  the  French  marriage,  and  alliance 
with  idolaters.  "  A  common  band  was  made,"  says  Knox,  in  the 
interests  of  the  truth.  We  have  seen  bands  enough,  instruments 
denounced  by  law,  in  the  past  history  of  Scotland.  But  the  band  of 
Argyll,  Glencairn,  Morton  (son  of  Sir  George  Douglas),  Lome,  and 


38  THE    FIRST   GODLY    BAND    (1557)- 

Erskine  of  Dun  (a  commissioner  for  the  marriage)  is  probably  the 
first  godly  band.  The  date  is  Edinburgh,  December  3,  1557.  The 
banded  nobles  are  to  resist  no  one  less  than  Satan,  "  even  unto  the 
death."  Before  God  and  the  Congregation  they  vow  to  peril  their 
very  lives  in  establishing  the  most  blessed  Word  of  God  and  his 
Congregation.  They  will  defend  faithful  ministers  against  "all 
wicked  power  that  does  intend  tyranny."  They  renounce  idolatry 
and  the  congregation  of  Satan,  that  is,  the  Church  as  by  law  estab- 
lished. Of  the  signatories,  Argyll,  after  denouncing  English  godli- 
ness as  a  hypocritical  cloak  of  greed,  had  sold  himself  for  1000 
crowns.  He  died  in  autumn  1558.  Glencairn  was  the  Kilmaurs 
whom  Henry  VHI.  had  found  so  shifty.  Morton  was  to  show  his 
form  of  godliness  by  murder,  by  being  art  and  part  in  Darnley's 
assassination,  and  by  robbing  and  insulting  the  reformed  Kirk 
through  his  "  tulchan  bishops."  Lome's  course  was  to  be  sufficiently 
ambiguous,  and  Erskine  of  Dun  had  begun  his  career  by  slaying  a 
priest  in  the  bell-tower  of  Montrose.  Erskine's  father  paid  the 
blood-price,  or  assythment.  These  were  strange  instruments  of 
reform  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  They  decided  that  the  common 
prayers  (the  Second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.)  should  be  read 
weekly  in  churches  by  the  curates,  if  read  they  could,  if  not,  by 
some  qualified  person.  Preaching  should  be  quiet,  without  great 
conventicles.^^ 

Very  shortly  after  the  letter  of  Henry  H.  to  the  Scots  Estates 
was  despatched,  on  November  29,  Parliament  met,  and  instructed 
Commissioners  to  deal  with  France  on  the  basis  of  Henry's  letter. 
The  Protestant  party  was  represented  on  the  commission  mainly  by 
Erskine  of  Dun,  and  the  Lord  James  Stewart,  Prior  of  St  Andrews. 
Perhaps  "  Protestant  "  is  too  definite  a  term,  at  least  for  Lord  James  ; 
but  he  had  been  a  hearer  of  Knox,  and  had  resolved  on  a  Protestant 
enterprise.  The  prelates  of  Glasgow,  Ross,  and  Orkney  represented 
the  Church ;  Rothes,  Cassilis,  Fleming,  and  Seton  were  probably  of 
open  mind  as  to  the  religious  question.  The  Commissioners  were 
enjoined  "of  new  to  contract  and  agree"  to  preserve  all  the  ancient 
rights,  liberties,  and  privileges  of  the  country.  If  Mary  died  without 
issue,  "  the  righteous  blood  of  the  Crown  of  Scotland "  was  to 
succeed — that  is,  the  House  of  Hamilton.  Chatelherault  acquiesced 
in  these  arrangements,  as  he  told  Sir  Harry  Percy,  who  approached 
him  in  the  English  interests.^^  Sir  Harry's  letter  shows  Chatelherault 
again  as  in  1542,  zealous  for  "  the  maintenance  of  the  Word  of  God." 


MARY    MARRIES   THE    DAUPHIN    (1558).  39 

Apparently  his  brother,  the  Archbishop,  could  not  keep  this  waverer 
constant.  As  to  safeguarding  the  freedom  of  Scotland,  the  marriage- 
contract  (April  19,  1558)  ratified  the  treaty  of  Haddington,  in  which 
these  rights  were  secured.  The  Scottish  Commissioners  were  to 
give  their  fealty  to  the  Dauphin  "  a  cause  de  la  ditte  Royne  sa  com- 
pagne  et  consort.'''  The  Dauphin  was,  in  his  capacity  as  Mary's  hus- 
band, to  bear  the  name,  title,  and  arms  of  the  King  of  Scotland. 
But  Francis  was  no  more  loyal  now  than  Edward  I.  had  been  con- 
stant to  the  Treaty  of  Birgham.  On  April  4  documents  to  a  very 
different  effect  had  been  signed  by  Mary.  If  she  died  without  issue, 
she  left  Scotland  in  free  gift  to  the  King  of  France,  with  all  her  con- 
ceivable rights  to  the  English  crown.  A  second  deed  made  Scotland 
responsible,  in  the  case  foreseen,  for  a  million,  or  whatever  other 
expense  France  had  incurred  in  defending  the  country.  Thirdly, 
she  declared  that  her  assent  to  the  Scottish  articles  as  to  the  succes- 
sioii,  if  she  died  without  issue,  was  to  be  of  no  effect.^^  These 
dealings,  due  to  the  scheming  of  Mary's  uncles,  the  Guises,  were 
merely  infamous.  How  far  the  young  queen  understood,  or  looked 
into,  the  papers  which  she  signed,  we  do  not  know  :  she  was  in- 
telligent enough  to  understand  their  purport.  The  Commissioners, 
ignorant  of  the  secret  clauses  signed  by  Mary,  declined  to  have 
"the  Honours  of  Scotland,"  the  Regalia,  brought  over  to  the 
Dauphin.  On  April  24  the  royal  marriage  was  celebrated  with 
great  pomp,  masques,  and  dances. ^^  Thus  at  last  the  "queen 
of  many  wooers "  had  found  a  lord  :  she  for  whose  unconscious 
hand  such  rivers  of  blood  had  flowed,  so  many  men  had  died. 
In  the  mythical  background  of  the  history  of  Helen,  while  yet 
a  child,  before  Ilios  and  its  leaguer  were  dreamed  of,  there  are 
legends  of  murders  and  manslayings,  sieges  and  invasions,  for 
her  beauty's  sake.  Mary  was  the  Helen  of  the  modern  world. 
Discord  came  to  her  christening  with  the  apple  of  strife,  the  one 
fatal  gift  among  many  gifts  so  goodly  :  beauty,  charm,  courage,  and 
loyal  heart.  Round  her  cradle  men  and  women  intrigued  and  lied; 
many  a  time  her  grand-uncle  had  practised  to  carry  the  infant  away 
from  her  guarded  castle.  For  her  sake  the  Border  again  and 
again  was  ravaged,  and  Beaton  was  slain,  and  corpses  lay  in  thou- 
sands on  the  'field  of  Pinkie  Cleugh.  Once  removed  to  France, 
who  shall  say  how  early  the  scandals  of  the  godly  pursued  her 
maiden  name  ?  Says  Knox,  "  The  Cardinal  of  Lorane  gat  her 
in  his  keeping,  a  morsel,  I  assure  you,  meet  for  his  own  mouth."  ^^ 


40  MARY   STUART. 

Dr  Hay  Fleming  remarks,  "  Before  Mary's  second  marriage,  he  who 
was  to  be  her  third  husband  was  alleged  to  have  called  her  '  Cardinal's 
whore.'"***  Bothwell  is  accused  of  having  circulated  the  slander 
which,  perhaps  through  him,  reached  the  Reformer.  Of  Mary's 
education  and  early  life  in  France  not  much  is  known.  Certainly 
she  was  not  always  secluded  in  a  convent :  she  often  followed  the 
Court,  and  was  kindly  treated  by  Diane  de  Poitiers,  and  was  in  the 
society  of  Catherine  de'  Medici,  the  queen.  What  manner  of  Court 
was  kept  by  Henri  II.  is  unknown  to  none.  What  slur  or  stain  fell 
on  Mary's  own  disposition  is  matter  of  conjecture.  She  was  well 
taught  in  accomplishments — riding,  embroidery,  dancing,  music  :  she 
had  some  Latin,  less  than  the  really  learned  ladies  of  her  age.  Her 
frank  dignity  of  bearing,  her  courage,  and  her  womanly  charm  and 
tact,  are  attested  even  by  jealous  diplomatists,  or  at  least  by  the 
diplomatists  of  jealous  Powers.  That  she  was  beautiful  is  more 
clearly  proved  by  her  history  than  by  her  portraits.  "A  fire  comes 
out  from  her  that  consumes  many."  No  woman  not  divinely  fair 
could  have  been  as  a  devouring  flame.  She  was,  in  brief,  the  Helen 
or  the  Cleopatra  of  the  modern  ages.  If  her  likenesses  disappoint, 
we  may  safely  ascribe  the  fault  to  artists  who  could  not  portray  a 
beautiful  woman.  Marguerite  of  Valois  fares  no  better  at  their 
hands.  For  the  word  of  God  Argyll  and  Morton  professed  themselves 
ready  to  imperil  "  their  very  lives."  For  Mary  men  poured  out  their 
lives  like  water.  She  was  more  to  them  than  a  woman ;  she  was  a 
religion  and  an  ideal.*  But  Fate,  from  her  cradle,  lay  so  heavy  upon 
her  that  no  conceivable  conduct  of  hers  could  have  steered  her 
safely  through  the  plotting  crowns  and  creeds,  the  rival  dissemblers, 
bigots,  hypocrites,  and  ruffians  who,  with  jealousy,  and  hatred,  and 
desire,  on  every  side  surrounded  her.  Joyous  by  nature  and  by 
virtue  of  her  youth,  she  was  condemned  to  a  life  of  tears,  and 
destined  to  leave  a  stained  and  contested  honour.  Such  was,  and 
was  to  be,  the  bride  of  Francis  of  France,  the  bride  of  Darnley,  the 
bride  of  Bothwell. 

*  This  rather  apphes  to  the  CathoHc  youth  of  England  tlian  to  Mary's  friends 
in  Scotland. 


NOTES.  41 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER    II. 

^  Lingard,  v.  285,  citing  Strype,  ii.  141.  ^  Calendar,  i.  140-145. 

^  De  Selve,  pp.  474,  477.  *  Hamilton  Papers,  ii.  622. 

^  Privy  Council,  i.  126.  ^  Lesley,  pp.  482,  483. 

^  Calendar,  i.  190.     September  24,  1552.  ^  Calendar,  i.  191. 

^  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  604,  605.  ^^  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  i.  iii. 

^^  Knox,  iii.  277.  ^'^  Knox,  iii.  122.  ^^  Knox,  iv.  43. 

"  Knox,  iii.  281.  ^^  Knox,  iii.  244.  ^^  Knox,  iii.  263-330. 

^^  Knox,  iii.  309.  ^^  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  i.  161. 

^*  Knox,  iv.  41-49.     His  account  of  these  troubles. 

^^  T.  G.  Law,  Preface  to  Catechism. 

■^1  Knox,  i.  245-252.  The  Pasquil  is  in  Knox,  iv.,  in  two  editions,  1556  and 
1558. 

-^  Early  English  Text  Society,  1872.     Edited  by  Dr  Murray. 

^^  Gtede  and  Godlie  Ballatis.  Edited  by  the  late  Dr  Mitchell  for  the  Scottish 
Text  Society,  1897.  Whether  one  of  the  brothers,  Robert,  was  author  of  the 
'Complaynt'  or  not,  is  disputed,  op.  cit.,  xxv,  xxvi. 

-^  Knox,  i.  267,  268.  '^'°  Knox,  i.  253-255. 

-^  Martyn  to  Mary  Tudor,  June  11,  1557.     Calendar,  i.  198. 

^^  Calendar,  i.  200,  201. 

-8  Council  to  Wharton,  July  29,  1557.  Tytler,  v.  24.  Not  calendared  by 
Thorpe  or  Bain. 

-^  Stevenson,  Illustrations,  p.  70.  ^^  Knox,  i.  256;  Lesley,  491. 

^^  Laing,  in  '  Knox,'  i.  560.  ^^  Knox,  i.  256. 

^^  Knox,  i.  269.  ^^  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  i.  205-212. 

^^  Knox,  i.  273,  275,  and  note  6.  ^^  January  22,  1559.     Keith,  i.  364-368. 

^'  Labanoff,  Recueil,  i.  52-56.  ^^  Teulet,  i.  302-311. 

^'  Knox,  i.  219. 

^^  Hay  Fleming,  p.  206,  citing  'Foreign  Calendar,  Elizabeth,'  1564-65,315, 
320,  325- 


42 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE    WARS    OF    THE    CONGREGATION. 

Almost  at  the  very  time  of  the  royal  marriage  the  clerical  party  in 
Scotland  achieved  their  last,  their  most  cruel,  and  most  impolitic  act 
of  persecution.  After  the  making  of  the  band  of  the  Congregation, 
in  December  1557,  there  had  arisen  a  controversy,  courteous  in 
terms,  between  Archbishop  Hamilton  and  the  aged  Earl  of  Argyll. 
A  preacher  named  Douglas  was  entertained  by  the  Earl :  the  Arch- 
bishop remonstrated,  and  Argyll  replied.  He  knew  that  Hamilton 
was  unpopular  with  the  clergy  "  for  non-pursuing  of  poor  simple 
Christians  " ;  he  knew  that  if  the  Archbishop  listened  to  his  clerical 
advisers,  there  would  be  burnings.  Against  these  he  warned  his 
correspondent.  The  letters  passed  between  the  end  of  March  and 
the  first  week  in  April  1558.^  As  Argyll's  character  has  not  been 
shown  in  a  favourable  light,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  at  this  period  neither 
he  nor  his  associates  can  well  have  been  moved  by  other  than  honest 
convictions.  Mary  Tudor  was  still  on  the  English  throne  :  nothing 
now  was  to  be  gained  from  England,  unless  on  the  expectation  of 
Mary's  death  and  the  return  of  Protestantism  under  Elizabeth.  In 
Mr  Froude's  opinion,  however,  "  the  gaunt  and  hungry  nobles  of 
Scotland,  careless,  most  of  them,  of  God  or  Devil,  were  eyeing  the 
sleek  and  well-fed  clergy  like  a  pack  of  famished  wolves."  The 
warning  of  Argyll  was  unheard  by  the  Archbishop.  On  a  date 
variously  given,  but  apparently  between  April  20  and  April  28, 
1558,  one  Walter  Milne,  a  very  aged  man,  and  a  married  priest, 
was  tried  for  heresy,  and  burned  at  St  Andrews.- 

Untrustworthy  as  is  Pitscottie,  his  word  may  perhaps  be  taken  for 
what  occurred  in  his  own  day,  almost  in  his  own  parish.  "  The  said 
Walter  Mylie  [Milne]  was  warming  him  in  a  poor  wom.an's  house 
in  Dysart,  and  teaching  her  the  commandments  of  God  to  her  and 


MARTYRDOM   OF   MILNE.      DISCONTENTS   (1558).  43 

her  bairns,  and  learning  her  how  she  should  instruct  her  house,  to 
bring  up  her  bairns  in  the  fear  of  God."  This  duty,  despite  the 
Archbishop's  Catechism,  had  been  flagrantly  neglected  by  the  clergy 
in  general.  To  arrest  such  a  man,  in  such  a  task,  as  "a  seducer  of 
the  people,"  and  to  burn  him  under  forms  of  the  most  dubious 
justice,  naturally,  and  righteously,  caused  "  a  new  fervency  among 
the  whole  people."  A  cairn  of  stones  was  raised  on  the  site  where 
Milne  had  suffered.  The  populace  was  now  sincerely  stirred,  and 
Milne,  as  he  had  hoped,  was  the  last  who  died  for  Protestantism  in 
Scotland.  The  act  was  cowardly  and  merciless.  Hamilton  might 
have  proceeded  against  Argyll.  He  preferred  to  burn  a  poor,  aged, 
and  decrepit  man  for  teaching  the  Commandments,  and  for  having, 
in  Beaton's  time,  married  and  abjured  his  orders. 

A  strange  event,  occurring  in  September  1558,  did  not  add  to 
the  popularity  of  France.  On  their  return  to  Scotland,  at  Dieppe, 
the  Commissioners  for  the  marriage  sickened,  the  Bishop  of 
Orkney  died,  and  by  November  29  Rothes,  Cassilis,  and 
Fleming  had  not  yet  left  France,^  where  they  later  succumbed. 
The  Lord  James  Stewart  is  said  never  to  have  recovered  his 
health  completely.  According  to  Pitscottie,  he  was  "  hanged  by 
the  heels  by  the  mediciners,  to  cause  the  poison  to  drop  out.* 
A  similar  tale  is  told  about  Cardan's  treatment  of  Arch- 
bishop Hamilton.  Naturally,  poison  was  suspected ;  but  the  fatal 
ball  at  Stirling,  in  recent  years,  proves  that  accident  and  oysters 
may  be  the  cause  of  similar  calamities.  The  temper  both  of  the 
populace  and  the  gentry  was  exhibited  in  August  and  September. 
Paul  Methven,  a  preacher  later  suspended  for  adultery,  had  been 
summoned  to  trial  for  heresy.  But  the  gentry  of  his  faction 
gathered  to  support  him,  as  when  Knox  was  summoned  in  1556, 
and  a  riot  seemed  probable.  The  trial  was  postponed  to  the 
beginning  of  September.^  Apparently  not  only  Methven,  but 
Willock  and  other  preachers  were  included  in  the  summons,  and 
their  armed  defenders  entered  the  Regent's  presence,  protesting, 
"  Shall  we  suffer  this  any  longer  ?  No,  madam  ;  it  shall  not  be. 
And  therewith  every  man  put  on  his  steel  bonnet."  The  Regent 
addressed  them  falteringly  in  her  broken  English,  "  Me  knew 
nothing  of  this  proclamation."^  If  Buchanan  and  Lesley  are  well- 
informed,  the  new  summons  against  the  preachers  coincided  with 
the  Feast  of  St  Giles  (September  i).  The  old  "idol,"  which  had 
been  carried  off,  had  not  been  replaced,  but  a  new  idol,  "  Young 


44  PROTESTS    OF   THE   CONGREGATION   dssSY 

St  Giles,"  was  borne  in  procession.  The  Regent  accompanied  it, 
but,  as  she  was  dining  in  a  burgess's  house,  while  St  Giles  was  being 
carried  back  to  his  shrine,  a  riot  arose.  "The  hearts  of  the  Brethren 
were  wonderfully  inflamed,"  and  the  rascal  multitude  now  loved 
mischief  more  than  they  feared  saints.  The  priests  were  scattered 
by  the  mob,  St  Giles  was  broken  to  pieces,  and  though  Buchanan 
says  that  there  was  no  bloodshed,  the  nerves  of  the  clergy  were 
shaken  seriously.  The  Bishop  of  Galloway,  a  rhymer  and,  Knox 
says,  a  gambler,  died  of  emotion.  "The  articles  of  his  creed  were  : 
"  I  refer !  Decart  you  :  ha,  ha,  the  Four  Kings,  and  all  made,  the 
Devil  go  with  it,  it  is  but  a  knave ! "  That  "  belly-god,"  Panter, 
the  learned  Bishop  of  Ross,  died  in  October.  The  Church  was 
seriously  weakened  by  his  decease. 

In  England  the  loss  of  Calais  was  followed  by  the  death  of  Mary 
Tudor  (November  17,  1558).  Elizabeth  was  naturally  expected  to 
bring  England  back  to  a  creed  which  would  be  sympathetic  to  the 
Lords  of  the  Congregation.  They  were  strong  in  the  popular 
favour,  England  would  soon  be  their  ally,  they  had  organised 
their  forces,  had  sent  emissaries  through  the  land  to  enrol  adher- 
ents, and  hoped  to  win  their  ends,  if  not  peacefully,  then  by  force 
of  arms.'^  Their  demands  for  right  to  use  common  prayers  in 
English  were  accepted,  for  the  time,  by  Mary  of  Guise,  provision- 
ally ;  they  might  "  use  them.selves  godly,"  and  apparently  might 
celebrate  the  sacrament  in  their  own  way  if  they  would  abstain 
from  public  meetings  in  Edinburgh  and  Leith.  All  this  till  "  some 
uniform  order  might  be  established  by  a  Parliament."  ^  Parliament 
met  on  November  29,  and  decreed  the  crown  matrimonial  to  the 
Dauphin.^  The  Lords  of  the  Congregation  put  in  a  letter  on  their 
own  affairs,  but  it  is  not  recorded ;  Knox  says  that  their  enemies 
refused  to  let  it  appear  in  the  register.  The  Protestants  observed 
that,  in  the  existing  state  of  the  penal  laws,  their  immortal  souls 
were  endangered  by  submission  to  "  the  damnable  idolatry  and 
intolerable  abuses  of  the  Papistical  Church."  In  addressing  mem- 
bers of  that  Church,  their  tone  was  remote  from  conciliatory.  They 
requested  that  the  Heresy  laws  should  be  suspended  till  a  General 
Council  decided  "all  controversies  in  religion,"  a  date  obviously 
remote.  Secondly,  lest  this  should  seem  to  "set  all  men  at  liberty 
to  live  as  they  list,"  they  asked  for  a  secular  judge,  with  the 
ordinary  and  necessary  provisions,  unknown  to  inquisitorial  pro- 
ceedings, for  the  defence  of  the  accused.      They  appealed  to  the 


QUENTIN    KENNEDY.  45 

Scriptures  as  the  sole  criterion  of  what  was,  or  was  not,  heresy. 
But  who  was  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  Regent,  in  these  difficult  circumstances,  temporised,  and 
the  evangelical  Lords  put  in  a  protest,  demanding  security  from 
persecution,  and  proclaiming  themselves  blameless,  if  tumults  arose, 
"  and  if  it  shall  chance  that  abuses  be  violently  reformed."  ^^  There 
are  hints  of  open  resistance  in  these  documents ;  but  it  is  clear  that, 
unless  the  petitions  were  granted,  force  was  the  only  remedy.  The 
state  of  affairs  justified  even  civil  war:  it  was 'intolerable  that  so 
great  a  part  of  the  commonwealth  as  the  protesting  Lords  repre- 
sented should  be  forced  into  hypocrisy  by  dread  of  the  stake.  In 
modern  times  a  mere  "  Disruption "  would  have  ensued.  In  the 
sixteenth  century,  compromise,  or  peaceful  secession,  was  practically 
impossible.  One  religion  must  conquer,  and  abolish,  or  try  to 
abolish,  the  other.  Even  in  their  petitions  the  Protestants  de- 
nounced the  religion  of  their  fathers  and  of  their  queen  as  "  dam- 
nable." The  two  hostile  forms  of  Christianity  could  not  live 
together  in  one  country.  The  quarrel  must  be  decided  by  the 
sword. 

It  certainly  could  not  be  decided  by  public  disputations.  That 
method  was  attempted.  While  the  early  spring  of  1559  was  being 
spent  in  the  negotiations  for  the  Peace  of  Cateau  Cambresis,  a 
Catholic  scholar  was  using  his  pen  to  aid  his  cause.  Quentin 
Kennedy,  a  younger  son  of  the  second  Earl  of  Cassilis  by  his  wife, 
a  daughter  of  Archibald,  Earl  of  Argyll,  was  a  good  representative  of 
the  Church.  Kennedy  had  studied  at  St  Andrews  and  Paris,  and 
was  vicar  of  Penpont.  In  1558  he  published  his  '  Compendius 
Tractive,'  a  reply  to  the  Protestants.  He  argues  that  the  Scriptures 
are  the  witnesses  to  the  will  and  purpose  of  God,  but  merely  the 
witnesses,  not  the  judge.  The  witnesses  must  be  examined  and 
cross-examined,  and  the  Church  alone  is  the  judge,  where  difficulties 
of  interpretation  arise.  "  The  wicked  opinion  of  some  private 
factious  men  .  .  .  sets  at  nought  the  interpretation  of  ancient 
General  Councils."  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  "Why  should  not  every 
man  read  the  Scripture  to  seek  out  his  own  salvation  ? "  Every 
man  is  not  competent.  How  can  every  private  reader  decide, 
for  instance,  as  to  doubted  questions  of  text  and  rendering? 
There  is  no  opinion  but  some  text  may  be  wrested  into  its 
justification.  To  ask  (as  Wallace  did)  to  be  judged  by  the 
Scriptures   is  to  ask  an  impossibility.^^     Such,  with  copious  rein- 


46  THE    beggars'    warning   (1559). 

forcements  from  the  Bible  and  the  Fathers,  is  Kennedy's  doctrine. 
In  March  1559  he  was  challenged  to  dispute  with  the  preacher 
Willock  at  Ayr.  Willock,  says  Kennedy,  had  been  making  great 
play,  in  sermons,  with  Irenseus,  Chrysostom,  Origen,  TertuUian, 
and  other  Fathers.  "  I  perceived  the  craft  of  the  knave,  who, 
expecting  no  adversary,  cited  such  doctors,  believing  that  their 
works  had  not  been  in  this  country " ;  and,  indeed,  there  can  have 
been  no  great  sale  for  Tertullian's  works  in  Ayrshire.  But 
Kennedy  possessed  these  and  other  authors.  He  reduced  Willock 
to  admit  that  he  only  accepted  his  own  Fathers,  "as  far  as  he 
thought  they  were  agreeable  with  the  Word  of  God."  On  the  day 
of  the  proposed  disputation,  four  or  five  hundred  Ayrshire  theolo- 
gians assembled  to  back  Willock.  Kennedy  could  have  brought 
twice  as  great  a  "  tail,"  but  he  foresaw  a  riot.  Nothing  else  could 
be  expected.  A  theological  discussion  would  have  degenerated 
into  a  clan  battle.^- 

Already  the  din  of  social  revolution  was  heard.  On  January  i, 
1559,  a  notice  had  been  fastened  on  the  gates  of  religious  houses. 
"The  beggars" — the  poor,  halt,  and  maimed — demanded  "restitu- 
tion." The  alms  and  the  wealth  of  the  religious  foundations,  they 
said,  were  their  own  :  they  would  claim  all,  and  evict  the  religious, 
on  Whitsunday.  Of  course  the  poor  never  got  the  "patrimony" 
which  they  claimed  in  "The  Beggars'  Warning."  The  example 
of  England  might  have  warned  them  that  the  Reformation  there 
only  deepened  social  oppression.  The  nobles  kept  the  wealth  of 
the  clergy,  though  perhaps  the  populace  helped  themselves  at  the 
sacking  of  churches  and  abbeys.  In  Edinburgh  the  town  council 
seized  and  sold  the  treasures  of  St  Giles'  (October  1560). 

While  these  affairs  show  the  drift  and  the  methods  of  the  great 
debate,  in  official  religious  politics  we  are  told  by  Knox  that  the 
godly  trusted  Mary  of  Guise,  and  rebuked  those  who  thought  her 
promises  hypocritical.^^  But  at  the  moment  of  the  general  Peace 
of  Gateau  Cambresis  (April  2,  1559)  the  Regent  "began  to  spew 
forth  and  declare  the  latent  venom  of  her  double  heart."  The 
treaty  provided  that  neither  realm  should  assist  the  enemies  or 
shelter  the  rebels  of  the  other.  The  Regent  might  hope  that 
Elizabeth  would  keep  the  treaty.  At  Easter  "  she  commanded  her 
household  to  use  all  abominations,"  and  insisted  on  knowing  when 
every  one  received  the  sacrament.  After  this  "it  is  supposed  that 
the  Devil  took  more  violent  and  strong  possession  in  her,"  so  much 


"THE   BATTLE   APPROACHETH  "  (1559).  47 

SO  that  she  "  caused  our  preachers  to  be  summoned  "  ;  among  them 
were  Willock  and  Paul  Methven.  When  remonstrated  with,  she 
blasphemed  and  told  Glencairn  and  the  sheriff  of  Ayr  that  princes 
need  keep  no  more  of  their  promises  than  they  pleased.  The 
summons  to  the  preachers,  however,  was  postponed.^* 

Here  accuracy  of  dates  is  desirable.  In  a  transcript  of  a  MS. 
'  Historic  of  the  Estate  of  Scotland '  we  do  get  an  approach  to 
dates,  and  an  account  of  the  events,  unlike  Knox's.  It  is  here  said 
that  the  preachers  were  summoned,  in  the  end  of  December  1558, 
to  appear  at  St  Andrews  on  February  2,  1559,  and  that  the 
summons  was  postponed.  "  We  ceased  not  most  humbly  to  sue 
her  favours,"  writes  Knox,  "  and  by  great  diligence  at  last  obtained 
that  the  summonses  at  that  time  were  delayed."  The  anonymous 
writer  explains  the  nature  of  the  humility  and  the  "  diligence  "  of 
Knox's  version  :  "  The  brethren  .  .  .  caused  inform  the  Queen- 
Regent  that  the  said  preachers  would  appear  with  such  multitude  of 
men  professing  their  doctrine,  as  was  never  seen  before  in  suchlike 
cases  in  this  country."  This  was  the  traditional  Scottish  way  of 
controlling  justice.  Mary  of  Guise,  fearing  sedition,  caused  the 
bishops  to  postpone  the  case,  and  summoned  a  convention  at 
Edinburgh  "  to  advise  for  some  reformation  in  religion."  The  date 
was  March  7,  1559,  and  a  helpless  Provincial  Council  was  held  at 
the  same  time.  Acts  were  passed  for  the  reform  of  the  lives 
of  the  clergy,  and  some  "  Articles "  suggested  by  the  moderate 
Catholics  were  considered.  But  nothing  was  done  to  any  pur- 
pose.^^  The  Protestants  dispersed :  the  bishops  bribed  Mary, 
says  the  anonymous  writer,  and  on  March  23  a  statute  denounced 
death  against  unauthorised  preaching  and  administration  of  the 
sacrament.  In  April  the  preachers  were  summoned,  under  pain  of 
outlawry. ^"^  According  to  Knox,  this  final  summons  was  for  May  10, 
at  Stirling.  Knox  himself  arrived  in  Edinburgh  on  May  2.  He 
went  to  Dundee,  after  writing  on  May  3  to  Mrs  Locke,  "Assist 
me,  sister,  with  your  prayers,  that  now  I  shrink  not  when  the  battle 
approacheth."  On  this  occasion  he  had  a  powerful  band  of  sup- 
porters. Dundee  was  full  of  the  gentlemen  of  Angus,  who  accom- 
panied the  preachers  to  Perth,  "  without  armour,  as  peaceable  men, 
minding  only  to  give  confession  with  their  preachers."  Lest  such 
a  crowd  should  frighten  the  Regent,  Knox  says,  that  they  sent 
Erskine  of  Dun  to  inform  her  of  their  peaceful  purpose.  She 
begged  him   "  to  stay  the  multitude,  and  the  preachers  also,  with 


48  WAS    MARY   OF   GUISE    TREACHEROUS? 

promise  that  she  would  take  some  better  order."  Erskine  wrote  to 
the  evangelists  in  Perth,  some  of  whom  acquiesced,  others  wished 
to  march  on  StirHng,  until  "a  discharge  of  the  former  summons 
should  be  had."  Knox  was  now  in  Perth.  The  Queen -Regent, 
"perceiving  that  the  preachers  did  not  appear"  on  May  lo,  had 
them  outlawed.  Erskine  retired  from  Stirling  to  Perth,  "and  did 
conceal  nothing  of  the  queen's  craft  and  falsehood."  Consequently 
the  multitude,  in  spite  of  "the  exhortation  of  the  preacher  and 
the  commandment  of  the  magistrate,  .  .  .  destroyed  the  places  of 
idolatry,"  the  religious  houses  in  Perth. ^''^ 

To  the  havoc  wrought  at  Perth  we  shall  return.  The  torch  of 
civil  war  was  lighted,  a  thing  inevitable ;  for  the  Government  could 
not  for  ever  endure  the  contumacy  of  the  preachers,  and  the  Con- 
gregation, if  they  left  their  pulpitmen  to  the  law,  would  be  stripped 
of  every  rag  of  honour.  The  conflict,  then,  must  have  come ;  but 
was  it  precipitated  by  an  act  of  explicit  treachery  on  the  part  of  Mary 
of  Guise  ?  This  is  the  theory  of  several  of  our  historians.  Mary 
"promised  to  withdraw  the  citations,"  but  broke  her  promise,  says 
Hill  Burton.i^  Mary  "declared  that  if  the  people"  (at  Perth) 
"would  disperse,  the  preachers  should  be  unmolested,  the  summons 
discharged,  and  new  proceedings  taken,  which  should  remove  all 
ground  of  complaint."  So  Tytler  :  ^^  adding  that,  "  relying  on  this 
premise,  the  leaders  sent  home  their  people."  Dr  M'Crie  avers 
that  Mary  promised  that  she  would  put  a  stop  to  the  trial,  and 
that  "  the  greater  part "  of  the  Protestants  *'  returned  to  their 
homes."  ^"^  The  doctor  then  blames  "  the  wanton  and  dishonourable 
perfidy"  of  the  Regent.  Dr  M'Crie  often  cites  the  MS  'Historic 
of  the  Estate  of  Scotland.'  Here  it  contradicts  Knox — and  is  not 
cited.  Mr  Froude  remarks,  "  Protestant  writers  say  that  the  Regent 
desired  them  "  (the  preachers)  "  not  to  appear,  and  then  outlawed 
them  for  disobedience  "  (that  is,  for  non-appearance),  adding,  "  This 
is  scarcely  the  truth."  ^^  Yet,  on  the  next  page,  Mr  Froude  writes 
that  Knox,  on  arriving  at  Perth,  "found  the  summons  withdrawn." 
Now  Knox  himself  does  not  tell  us  in  his  History  that  the  summons 
to  the  preachers  was  withdrawn.  The  Queen-Regent  "promised 
that  she  would  take  some  better  order,"  vague  enough.  Some 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Congregation,  says  Knox,  distrusting  Mary's 
vague  promise  of  taking  "some  better  order,"  desired  that  the 
summons  should  be  withdrawn ;  but  Mary,  "  notwithstanding  any 
request  made  in  the  contrary,  perceiving  that  the  preachers  did  not 


CONFUSION   OF   EVIDENCE.  49 

'compear,'  gave  commandment  to  put  them  to  the  horn" — that  is, 
to  outlaw  them  and  their  abettors.  Erskine  of  Dun  then  left  Stirling 
and  explained  the  situation  to  the  Reformers  in  Perth.--  Mary's 
vague  promise  to  Erskine  caused  the  multitude  at  Perth  to  "dis- 
perse," according  to  Mr  Hill  Burton  ;  according  to  Mr  Tytler,  "  their 
leaders  sent  home  the  people,"  and  thus  Mary's  treachery  secured  its 
end.  But  Knox,  who  was  in  Perth,  says  that  "  the  whole  multitude 
with  their  preachers  stayed."  To  be  sure,  Knox,  writing  to  Mrs 
Locke  from  St  Andrews  six  weeks  later  (June  23),  gives  a  version 
different  from  that  in  his  History. ^^  He  says  that  the  Queen-Regent 
bade  the  multitude  to  "  stay  "  (at  Perth)  "  and  not  come  to  Stirling, 
which  place  was  appointed  to  the  preachers  to  compear,  and  so  should 
no  extremity  be  used,  but  the  summons  should  be  continued  "  (post- 
poned) "  till  further  avisement,  which  being  gladly  granted  of  us, 
some  of  the  brethren  returned  to  their  dwelling-places."  Mary  then 
summoned  the  preachers,  and  outlawed  them  on  their  non-appear- 
ance. Here  Mary's  guilt  lay  in  persevering  with  a  summons  which 
she  is  said  to  have  promised  to  "  continue  till  further  avisement." 

All  this  is  contradicted  by  the  anonymous,  but  Protestant,  '  His- 
toric of  the  Estate  of  Scotland.'  "Albeit  the  Queen-Regent  was 
most  earnestly  requested  and  persuaded  to  continue  "  (that  is,  to  defer 
the  summons),  "  nevertheless  she  remained  wilful  and  obstinate  "  (that 
is,  did  not  "continue"  or  postpone  the  summons).  .  .  .  "Shortly, 
the  day  being  come"  (May  10),  "because  they  appeared  not,  their 
sureties  were  outlawed"  (really  they  were  fined),  "and  the  preachers 
ordered  to  be  put  to  the  horn.^*  On  this  (and  not  before),  Erskine 
of  Dun,  having  visited  Stirling  to  speak  to  the  queen,  "  perceiving 
her  obstinacy,  they  [who  ?  ]  returned  from  Stirling,  and  coming  to 
Perth,  declared  to  the  brethren  the  extremitie  they  found  in  the 
queen."  They  then  sacked  religious  houses.^^  Here  we  find  no 
word  of  even  a  vague  promise  of  deferring  the  summons  :  Mary  is 
said  to  have  refused  to  do  so.  The  author  "inspires  confidence," 
says  Mr  Hume  Brown,  because  "  certain  of  his  facts  not  recorded  by 
other  contemporary  Scottish  historians  are  corroborated  by  the  de- 
spatches of  d'Oysel  and  others  in  Teulet."-^  Finally,  Sir  James 
Croft,  writing  from  Berwick  on  May  19,  says  that  the  preachers, 
with  a  train  of  5000  or  6000  men,  repaired  towards  Stirling,  but 
were  put  to  the  horn,  and  the  nobles  commanded  to  appear  before 
the  Regent  at  Edinburgh.  They  had  sent  Erskine  of  Dun  to  ask 
the   Regent   to   permit   a   public  disputation.     She  outlawed  him.^' 

VOL.    II.  D 


50  THE    WRECKING    OF    PERTH. 

The  account  which  most  modern  historians  really  rest  on  is  that  of 
Buchanan.^s  He  says  that  the  Regent  asked  Erskine  to  send  home 
the  multitude,  and  promised  that  in  the  meanwhile  she  would  at- 
tempt nothing  against  any  of  the  faith.  Many  therefore  went  home. 
Nevertheless  the  Regent  put  the  preachers  to  the  horn.  But,  if  we 
accept  Knox's  History,  the  whole  tnultitude  stayed  at  Perth,  and  did 
not  go  home  at  all.  In  his  letter  some  went  home.  If  the  Regent's 
promise  was  conditional,  depending  on  the  dispersion  of  the  crowd, 
she  broke  no  promise.  Such,  and  so  confused  and  contradictory,  is 
the  evidence  for  Mary's  perfidy.  Probably  Knox's  letter  of  June  23 
is  the  most  trustworthy  account,  though  it  clashes  with  his  History. 
Mr  Tytler's  charge  of  "  treacherous  precipitation  "  against  the  Queen- 
Regent  is  decidedly  too  absolute. 

The  real  occasion  of  the  outbreak  was  the  habit  of  trying  to 
overawe  justice  by  tumultuous  assemblages.  The  ruin  and  wrack 
wrought  at  Perth  were  such  as  characterise  revolutions.  The 
Christians  on  the  fall  of  Paganism  ;  the  Huguenots  at  Orleans ;  the 
French  in  1793,  were  equally  or  even  more  destructive  to  buildings, 
books,  and  works  of  art  than  the  Reformers  in  Scotland.  Knox 
was  certainly  conscious  of  the  blame  which  attaches  itself  to  wasteful 
and  wanton  destruction.  He  says  that  "  neither  the  exhortation  of 
the  preacher  nor  the  commandment  of  the  magistrate  could  stay 
them  from  the  destroying  of  the  places  of  idolatry,"  as  we  have  seen. 
But  places  are  one  thing,  objects  of  art  are  another.  The  preachers, 
before  May  11,  had  instructed  the  multitude  that  God  commands 
*'  the  destruction  of  the  monuments  of  idolatry."  Consequently, 
when  the  sermon  of  May  11,  at  Perth,  "was  vehement  against 
idolatry,"  the  inevitable  consequences  followed.  After  the  sermon 
a  priest  did  his  duty,  and  performed  mass,  opening  "  a  glorious 
tabernacle  that  stood  on  the  high  altar."  "A  young  boy"  cried  out 
that  this  was  intolerable.  The  priest  struck  him,  and  the  boy,  like 
Smollett  in  youth,  "  had  a  stane  in  his  pouch."  He  threw  it,  and 
struck  the  tabernacle.  The  whole  multitude  destroyed  the  works  of 
art,  and  while  the  gentry  and  "  the  earnest  professors "  were  at 
dinner  the  rascal  multitude  sacked  the  Franciscan  monastery.  From 
the  Charter-House,  founded  by  James  I.,  the  prior  is  said  to  have 
been  allowed  to  take  away  as  much  of  the  gold  and  silver  as  he 
could  carry.  Men  "  had  no  respect  to  their  own  particular  profit, 
but  only  to  abolish  idolatry."  Yet  "the  spoil  was  permitted  to 
the   poor."       Of    the    religious    houses    only   the   walls    were    left 


PRIESTS   CONDEMNED   TO   DIE.  5I 

Standing. 23  Priests  were  forbidden  to  do  the  mass  under  pain 
of  death,  a  significant  fact  which  our  historians  usually  overlook.^*' 
Mr  Tytler  never  alludes  to  it.  The  idea  of  Knox  and  his 
friends  appears  to  have  been  that  where  they  held  a  town,  such 
as  Perth,  Catholics  might  not  exercise  their  religion  except  at 
the  price  of  the  death  of  their  priest.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  the  Catholic  clergy  elsewhere  persecuted  Protestants,  Knox 
and  his  allies  promised  to  treat  them  as  murderers,  as  shall  pre- 
sently be  shown. 

Clearly,  if  either  set  of  persecutors  were  murderers,  both  sets 
were ;  but  as  the  Reformers  were  a  law  to  themselves,  and 
broke  the  law  of  their  country,  they  were  the  less  excusable.  On 
hearing  of  the  acts  of  destruction  at  Perth  (locally  said  to  have  been 
done  by  men  from  Dundee),  Mary  of  Guise  summoned  Argyll, 
Arran,  and  Atholl,  and  "  all  the  nobility."  She  is  said  by  Knox  to 
have  threatened  to  sow  Perth  with  salt,  especially  resenting  the 
destruction  of  the  Charter-House,  "  sacred  as  the  burial-place  of  the 
first  of  the  Stewart  kings,"  says  Mr  Froude.  But  James  I.  was  not 
precisely  the  first  king  of  his  House.^^  Knox  meanwhile  was  in  Perth. 
Expecting  the  Regent's  arrival  there  with  French  troops,  he  received 
reinforcements  of  the  godly,  who  began  to  fortify  the  place.  On 
May  22  they  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Regent.  They  assured  her  that 
they  would  risk  a  thousand  deaths  rather  than  "  deny  Christ  Jesus 
and  His  manifest  verity."  They  did  not  add  that  they  meant  to 
inflict  death  on  priests  whose  theory  of  Christ's  verity  differed  from 
their  own.  They  bade  the  Regent  leave  them  unharmed  till  they 
"  received  answer  "  from  Mary  Stuart  in  France,  and  the  Dauphin.^^ 
This  letter  meant  open  rebellion  to  constituted  authority.  The 
writers  were  but  "a  very  few  and  mean  number  of  gentlemen," 
who  described  themselves,  in  a  letter  to  the  nobles,  as  "  the  Con- 
gregation of  Christ  Jesus  in  Scotland."  They  defended  their  con- 
duct, as  usual,  out  of  the  Bible,  and  pointed  out  that  the  apostles 
had  been  dissenters  in  their  day,  "  did  dissassent  from  the  whole 
world."  The  difference,  perhaps,  was  that  the  apostles  did  not  sack 
the  Temple  and  fortify  Jerusalem  against  Rome  and  the  Jews.  For 
this  behaviour  no  New  Testament  warrant  was  cited. 

Knox  avers  that  "we  required  nothing  but  the  liberty  of  conscience," 
a  strange  request  from  men  who  doomed  priests  to  death.  Reformers 
and  Covenanters  alike  desired  "  liberty  of  conscience  "  for  themselves. 
It   included  refusal  of  such  liberty  to   their  opponents.     Another 


52  CONFERENCE    AT    PERTH. 

letter  was  addressed  to  the  clergy,  "  To  the  Congregation  of  Anti- 
christ, the  pestilent  prelates  and  their  shavelings."  If  they  persist 
in  persecution,  they  "  shall  be  apprehended  as  murderers."  "  We 
shall  begin  that  same  war  which  God  commanded  Israel  to  execute 
against  the  Canaanites."  The  writers  had  summoned  their  adherents, 
and  knew  that  they  had  a  strong  backing. ^^  The  Protestants  occu- 
pied a  strong  position  ;  but  Ruthven,  Provost  of  Perth,  and  later  a 
murderer  of  Riccio,  joined  the  Regent.  On  May  25  the  Regent 
sent  Argyll,  Sempill,  and  the  Lord  James  to  confer  with  the  barons 
and  lairds  who  headed  the  Congregation.  Of  that  body  Argyll  had 
been  one  of  the  earliest  members,  and  Lord  James  too  was  reckoned 
godly.  In  1558,  according  to  Lesley,  Lord  James,  Prior  of  St 
Andrews  and  Macon,  asked  Mary,  in  France,  to  give  him  the 
earldom  of  Murray.  Mary,  however,  tutored  by  the  Regent,  advised 
him  to  pursue  in  a  holy  spirit  the  ecclesiastical  career  for  which  he 
had  been  trained,  and  she  held  out  hopes  of  a  bishopric.  Conse- 
quently Lord  James  hated  the  Regent.^*  In  fact,  in  1559,  Lord 
James  was  a  Protestant,  and  had  nothing  of  the  prior — save  the 
revenues.  He  and  Argyll,  meeting  the  insurgents  at  Perth,  were 
told  that  these  gentlemen  demanded  nothing  but  liberty  of  con- 
science (for  Protestants)  in  that  town.  Lord  James  said  that, 
according  to  the  Regent,  "  they  meant  no  religion  but  a  plain 
rebellion."  They  meant  both.  Knox  told  the  envoys  that  "  God's 
written  Word  being  admitted  for  judge,"  he  would  prove  the  Regent's 
creed  to  be  mere  superstition.  Of  course  he  was  to  be  himself  the 
interpreter  of  God's  written  Word,  and  therefore  could  prove  exactly 
whatever  he  pleased. 

He  added  that  the  Regent's  attempt  would  end  in  her  con- 
fusion. She  was  already  in  the  worst  of  health.  The  Queen- 
Regent's  forces  lay  at  Auchterarder,  between  Stirling  and  Perth. 
With  d'Oysel,  their  leader,  the  faithful  made  an  arrangement.  No 
inhabitant  of  Perth  was  to  suffer  for  the  recent  riot :  "  religion " 
was  to  "  go  forward  " ;  the  queen  was  not  to  leave  French  soldiers 
in  Perth  when  she  passed  from  it.  D'Oysel,  knowing  that  the 
brethren  of  the  west,  under  Glencairn,  had  reached  Perth  by  forced 
marches,  spoke  peacefully,  and  Argyll  and  Lord  James  began  to 
arrange  terms.  Knox  lectured  these  two  lords  for  their  desertion 
of  the  godly;  however,  the  terms  were  settled  on  May  28,  and 
on  ]\Iay  31  Argyll  and  Lord  James,  vowing  to  join  the  rebels  if 
Mary    proved    false,    renewed,    and    signed,    a    "  band "    with    the 


THE    REGENT   GARRISONS    PERTH.  53 

Congregation.  Boyd,  Glencairn,  and  Ochiltree  also  signed  this 
league  for  mutual  defence,  and  for  the  destruction  of  idolatry.^^ 
The  faithful  then  scattered,  wrecking  churches  on  their  homeward 
ways,  "  breaking  down  the  altars  and  idols."  ^^  Argyll  and  Lord 
James,  though  sent  by  Mary  to  negotiate  for  her,  had  actually 
signed  the  band  that  pledged  the  godly  to  commit  these  outrages  ! 

Soon  after  the  disturbances,  which  dated  from  May  1 1 ,  began, 
Mary  wrote  (May  17)  to  Henri  II.  of  France.  On  June  i  he 
replied,  expressing  his  anxiety,  promising  to  send  tine  bonne  force  de 
gens  de  guerre  on  receipt  .of  her  reply.  He  was  determined  to 
"exterminate  traitors,"  and  fight  "in  the  quarrel  of  God."  On 
June  1 1  Cardinal  Guise  advised  the  Queen  Regent,  if  victorious, 
to  imitate  Mary  Tudor,  and  cut  off  the  heads  and  chiefs  of  the 
Protestant  rebels.  This  was  advice  which  the  good  Mary  of  Guise 
would  never  have  taken. ^^ 

The  queen  entered  the  distracted  town  of  Perth  on  May  29.  She 
found  the  religious  houses  ruinous,  the  altars  destroyed,  and,  pro- 
bably, an  excited  populace,  for  all  the  people  of  Perth  were  not 
Protestants.  A  child  was  shot,  perhaps  by  accident. ^^  The 
Catholics  celebrated  the  mass  as  best  they  might :  the  French 
were  billeted  on  the  town,  and,  according  to  Knox  (who  is  not 
corroborated  by  documents),  Ruthven  was  removed  from  the  pro- 
vostship  and  superseded  by  Charteris  of  Kinfauns.  Between  their 
families  the  post  had  long  been  a  subject  of  deadly  feud.^^  On 
departing,  the  Regent  left  four  companies  of  Scots  in  French 
service,  maintaining  that  she  had  only  promised  not  to  leave 
Frenchmen.  There  is  a  decided  distinction  between  Frenchmen 
and  kindly  Scots  under  French  colours,  but  the  Regent  is  again 
accused  of  perfidy.  Even  James  VI.  accepted  the  charge,  quoting 
Buchanan. ^^  According  to  Buchanan  (who  here  often  coincides 
almost  verbally  with  Knox),  the  queen's  action  brought  her  into 
public  contempt.  Argyll  and  Lord  James  left  the  queen,  alleging 
that  they  could  not  be  partakers  of  her  perfidy  (June  i).  What 
their  own  loyalty  had  been  we  have  noted. 

At  this  point  and  onwards  it  is  necessary  to  criticise  with  perhaps 
tedious  minuteness  the  evidence  for  the  charges  of  perfidy  against 
Mary  of  Guise.  That  she  could  be  double-faced  is  certain  from 
Sadleyr's  account  of  her  diplomacy  in  1543.*^  But  historians 
have  made  her  broken  promises  the  occasion  of  all  the  mischief 
which  occurred  at  Perth  and  was  to  follow  throughout  Scotland. 


54  THE   RUIN   OF   ST   ANDREWS. 

While  these  charges  are  dubious,  or  exaggerated,  there  is  no  doubt 
at  all  about  the  duplicity  of  her  Protestant  opponents.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  this  part  of  Knox's  History  was  written,  perhaps 
as  a  kind  of  manifesto,  as  early  as  October  1559.''^  The  author  has 
to  conceal,  and  even  to  deny  flatly,  such  matters  as  his  own  and  his 
party's  intrigues  with  England.  He  labours  to  prove  that  his  faction 
was  no\.  politically  disloyal — which  it  was.  By  way  of  palliation,  he 
has  to  insist  on  the  perfidy  of  the  Regent.  Indeed  he  did  so  from 
the  pulpit,  before  the  ink  of  the  Arrangement  of  Perth  was  dry.  He 
said,  "  I  am  assured  that  no  part  of  this  promise  made  shall  be  longer 
kept  than  till  the  queen  and  her  Frenchmen  have  the  upper  hand." 
He  was  quite  right;  the  articles  were  pre-adjusted  with  a  defect 
which  gave  the  means  of  discarding  them.*^ 

To  St  Andrews  Argyll  and  Lord  James,  after  leaving  Mary,  went, 
summoning  their  alhes.  Whether  they  were  honestly  indignant,  or 
merely  were  seeking  the  first  pretext  for  returning  to  their  old  allies, 
is  debated.  Was  the  Regent  to  abandon  the  priests  of  her  faith  in 
Perth  to  the  death  denounced  by  the  Protestants  ?  **  And  if  her 
co-religionists  were  to  be  protected,  as  Mary  had  no  feudal  array, 
and  had  promised  to  trust  no  Frenchmen,  whom  could  she  leave 
except  Scots  in  French  service  ?  This  difficulty  is  only  evaded 
by  ignoring  the  Protestant  death-sentence  on  priests.  The  Regent, 
of  course,  had  other  reasons  for  holding  so  strong  a  post  as  Perth,  a 
walled  city. 

The  godly  now  did  unto  St  Andrews  even  as  they  had  done  unto 
Perth.  They  called  the  Perth  rioters  into  St  Andrews  for  June  3. 
They  came,  with  Knox  in  their  company.  He  preached  at  Crail 
and  Anstruther:  the  usual  destruction  followed.*^  By  this  time,  if  not 
before,  Knox  knew  what  effect  followed  his  sermons  :  he  no  longer 
writes,  "neither  could  the  exhortation  of  the  preachers,  nor  the 
commandment  of  the  magistrate,  stay  them  from  destroying  of  the 
places  of  idolatry."  The  Archbishop,  riding  into  the  town  with 
a  hundred  spearmen,  vainly  tried  to  deter  Knox  by  threats  from 
preaching  at  St  Andrews.  The  Queen-Regent  with  her  forces  was 
at  Falkland,  the  temper  of  the  town  was  uncertain,  but  Knox 
declined  to  be  intimidated.  On  Sunday  he  preached  on  the 
purging  of  the  temple.*^  "The  Magistrates,  the  Provost  and 
Bailies,  as  the  commonalty  for  the  most  part  within  the  town,  did 
agree  to  remove  all  monuments  of  idolatry,  which  also  they  did 
with   expedition."     "Their  idols  were  burned   in   their  presence," 


THE   RUIN    OF    ST    ANDREWS.  55 

says  Knox  to  Mrs  Locke,  speaking  of  the  clergy.  Concerning  the 
details  of  the  destruction  little  is  known.  "  In  this  time  all  church- 
men's goods  were  spoiled  and  reft  from  them,  in  every  place  where 
the  same  could  be  apprehended,  for  every  man  for  the  most  part 
that  could  get  anything  pertaining  to  any  churchmen  thought  the 
same  as  well-won  gear."  So  writes  the  '  Diurnal  of  Occurrents '  on 
July  14,  1559  (p.  269).  The  Cathedral  of  St  Andrews,  the  Mother 
Church  of  Scotland,  contained,  like  the  temples  of  ancient  Greece, 
objects  of  priceless  value  and  of  immense  antiquity.  The  crucifix 
of  St  Margaret;  the  arm-bone  of  the  apostle  in  its  golden  case, 
adorned  with  jewels  of  gold  by  Edward  I.  ;  with  other  gifts  of 
royal  and  noble  donors,  had  been,  and  probably  still  were,  in  the 
cathedral.  We  have  no  catalogue  of  these  treasures.  But  we 
have  a  MS.  catalogue  of  "  the  geir  of  St  Salvator's  College."  The 
same  document  mentions  objects  retained  in  private  hands  for  con- 
cealment. We  read  of  "  six  chalices  of  the  best,  the  Holy  Cross, 
the  beryl  cross,  ten  chandeliers,  the  embroidered  cushions  in  the 
meikle  kist  in  the  Provost's  stable."  We  hear  of  tapestry,  cloth- 
of-gold,  "the  big  and  little  tyaste  of  beryl,  with  pearls  about  it." 
There  is  also  Bishop  Kennedy's  silver-gilt  mace,  with  figures  in 
relief,  representing  all  orders  of  spirits  in  the  universe.  This 
mace  was  decidedly  "  idolatrous,"  but  such  maces  alone,  with 
mangled  heads  of  the  Redeemer  and  a  saint,  discovered  by  Lord 
Bute  in  the  drain  of  the  sub-prior's  house,  survive  to  attest  the 
wealth  and  art  of  St  Andrews.  The  very  lead  of  bishops'  coffins 
has  been  stolen.  The  shattered  chapel  of  the  Dominicans  remains  : 
the  Franciscan  monastery  has  vanished.  The  cathedral  is  the  most 
gaunt  of  ruins.  We  need  not  suppose  that  it  was  destroyed  in 
a  day.  When  once  the  lead  was  riven  from  the  roof,  the  weather, 
and  the  use  of  the  place  as  a  quarry,  would  do  the  rest. 

During  these  excesses  where  were  the  Catholics  of  Scotland? 
As  a  force,  ready  to  defend  their  sacred  things,  they  did  not  exist. 
They  could  only  move  under  the  nobles,  and  the  nobles  were  Re- 
formers, or  neutral,  or  mere  intriguers.  Beaton,  Archbishop  of 
Glasgow,  carried  to  France  some  of  the  sacred  things  of  his  Church. 
Others,  from  Aberdeen,  intrusted  to  Huntly,  later  fell  into  Mary's 
hands. 

Chatelherault  and  the  Archbishop  now  joined  the  Regent  at 
Falkland.  With  d'Oysel  they  were  to  march  on  St  Andrews,  by 
Cupar,  but  Cupar  was  already  seized  by  the  Brethren,     They  out- 


$6  EDINBURGH   SEIZED. 

numbered  the  Regent's  force,  and  on  June  13  an  arrangement  had 
to  be  made.  Mary  was  obHged  to  remove  her  French,  except  three 
sea-board  garrisons,  out  of  Fife.  A  pause  of  eight  days  was  allowed 
for  a  discussion,  but  Mary  sent  no  envoys  to  St  Andrews. ^''^  Argyll 
and  Murray  wrote  to  Mary,  complaining  of  the  garrison  of  Scots  under 
French  colours  in  Perth.  They  say,  "  Suppose  that  it "  (the  clause 
in  the  Perth  treaty)  "  was  spoken  of  French  soldiers  only,  yet  we 
took  it  otherwise,  as  we  still  do."  They  then  coerced  the  garrison 
in  Perth,  which  evacuated  the  town  (June  25).  The  abbey  and  the 
palace  of  Scone  were  next  sacked,  in  spite  of  the  strenuous  efforts 
of  Knox  and  the  nobles.  Stirling  was  handled  in  similar  style. 
Mary  retreated  to  Dunbar,  the  Congregation  entered  Edinburgh, 
found  the  religious  houses  already  wrecked,  and  seized  Holyrood 
and  the  stamps  at  the  mint.  On  this  Mary  issued  a  paper,  assert- 
ing that  religion  was  a  mere  cloak  for  rebellion,  and  that  she  had 
offered  to  establish  liberty  of  conscience  till  a  Parliament  could  be 
held  in  January,  or  sooner, — "  a  manifest  lie,"  writes  Knox.  Mary 
declared  that  the  Congregation  was  intriguing  with  England,  and 
had  seized  the  stamps  at  the  mint  and  her  palace  of  Holyrood. 
Writing  four  months  later,  Knox  has  the  assurance  to  say,  "  There 
is  never  a  sentence  of  the  narrative  true."  They  had  seized  the 
stamps,  but  that  was  to  stop  the  utterance  of  debased  coin.  Now 
the  "narrative"  is  true.  As  to  Mary's  concessions,  Kirkcaldy  says 
to  Percy  (June  25)  that  the  Regent  "is  like  to  grant  the  other 
party "  (his  party)  "  all  they  desire,  which  in  part  she  has  offered 
already." ^^  Are  we  to  believe  Knox,  or  Kirkcaldy?  As  to  the 
dealings  with  England,  which  Mary  alleged,  Knox  had  proposed 
to  Kirkcaldy  a  union  with  England  as  against  France  (June  23). 
Knox,  on  June  28,  had  asked  for  an  interview  with  Cecil:  he  was 
trying,  in  his  own  way,  to  soothe  Elizabeth's  anger  against  him, 
awakened  by  his  blast  against  "the  Monstrous  Regiment  of  Women." 
It  is  thus  plain  that  Knox's  vehement  giving  of  the  lie  to  Mary 
is  not  justified.  Indeed  he  lets  out  the  fact  in  a  later  page.*^ 
He  and  Kirkcaldy  were,  as  Mary  said,  intriguing  with  England. 
Knox  avers  that  Mary  said  "they  sought  nothing  but  her  life," 
and  quotes  her  proclamation,  in  which  she  does  not  say  so.  The 
Reformers  were,  apparently,  aiming  at  nothing  less  than  to  alter 
the  succession  to  the  throne. 

The    eldest    son    of   Chatelherault,    Arran,   was    captain    of  the 
Scots  Guard  in  France,  and  was  a  Protestant.      Henri  II.  writes 


PROPOSED    MARRIAGE   OF   ARRAN    AND   ELIZABETH.       57 

that  Arran  has  caused  scandals  in  Poitou,  and  has  fled  to  escape 
arrest. ^'^  He  reached  Geneva,  and  was  conducted  home  by  agents 
of  Elizabeth.  As  early  as  June  14,  Croft,  from  Berwick,  wrote 
to  Cecil  on  this  subject.  Arran  "  is  very  well  bent  to  religion, 
and,  next  his  father,  he  is  the  only  help  of  the  realm."  If  all 
their  imaginations  may  take  place,  they  intend  to  presume  to 
motion  a  marriage,  "  You  know  where."  That  is,  the  Reformers, 
asking  the  aid  of  England,  in  contravention  of  the  recent  treaty 
of  peace,  wished  Elizabeth  to  marry  Arran.  The  result,  if  suc- 
cessful, must  be  to  place  the  house  of  Hamilton  on  the  throne. ^^ 
On  June  28  Throckmorton  wrote  that  Whitlowe  (an  old  Scots 
agent  of  England  under  Somerset)  proposed  a  marriage  between 
the  queen  (Elizabeth)  and  the  Earl  of  Arran.  Mary  Stuart  under- 
stood the  situation.  She  told  Mompesat  (who  had  been  hunting 
for  Arran)  that  "  he  could  not  do  her  a  greater  pleasure  than  to 
use  Arran  as  an  arrant  traitor."  ^^  These  intrigues  prove  that  the 
Reformers  looked  to  Arran,  not  to  the  Lord  James,  as  their  future 
king.  Lord  James  was  suspected  of  aiming  at  the  Crown,  but  it  is 
probable  that  this  remarkable  statesman  had  no  such  ambition. 

Meanwhile,  by  occupying  Edinburgh,  Knox's  party  had  destroyed 
any  shadowy  chance  of  accommodation.  Indeed  none  such  could 
be  :  to  them  universal  toleration  was  abhorrent,  even  had  the  Regent 
been  in  earnest.  By  July  i,  Chatelherault,  "with  almost  the  whole 
nobility,"  says  Kirkcaldy,  had  joined  the  Brethren.  The  Second 
Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.  was  appointed  to  be  read  in  churches. 
The  property  of  the  Church  was  to  be,  for  the  present,  "bestowed 
upon  the  faithful  ministers."  Knox's  hatred  of  the  prayer-book  soon 
swept  it  away ;  nor  did  the  faithful  ministers  get  "  all  the  fruits  of  the 
abbeys."  The  Reformers  would  be  content  with  nothing  from  the 
Regent  but  a  general  Reformation  and  the  dismissal  of  the  French, 
which  some  expected  her  to  grant.  This  letter  of  Kirkcaldy's  is  of 
July  I,  the  same  day  as  Mary's  charges  against  the  Reformers,  which 
Kirkcaldy  may  not  yet  have  seen.^^  She  continued  to  negotiate  : 
she  had  again  won  over  Chatelherault,  Knox  says,  by  insisting  that 
Argyll  and  Lord  James  were  not  allowed  to  meet  her  in  private.  A 
larger  meeting  at  Preston  had  no  efifect.  Mary  insisted  that,  where 
she  was,  preachers  should  be  silent,  and  she  should  have  her  mass. 
The  Reformers  had  just  told  her  that  they  desired  "liberty  of 
conscience."  ^^  They  now  added  that  she  must  not  expect  this 
satisfaction  ;    "  neither  could  we  suffer  that  the  risrht  administration 


58  PROTESTANTS    EVACUATE    EDINBURGH. 

of  Christ's  true  sacraments  should  give  place  to  manifest  idolatry."  ^^ 
There  was  no  possibility  of  dealing  with  men  so  intolerant  ;  and 
Mary  temporised,  trusting  that  the  levies  of  the  Congregation  would 
break  up,  as  they  began  to  do.  Thus  July  slipped  past,  the  Re- 
formers dealing  with  England,  while  in  France  the  desire  was  to 
help  the  Regent. 

Cecil  had  every  wish  to  aid  the  Reformers,  though  Knox,  at 
great  length,  had  demonstrated  that  he  richly  deserved  damna- 
tion.^^ Cecil  felt  that  England  needed  Scotland  in  opposition  to 
France,  where  Mary  and  the  Dauphin  had  assumed  the  title  of 
King  and  Queen,  and  had  quartered  the  arms  of  England,^'^  which 
implied  that  Elizabeth  was  illegitimate.  Moreover,  Cecil  had  heard 
from  Throckmorton,  in  Paris,  that  the  Guises  advised  death  and 
confiscation  against  Argyll,  Lord  James,  and  others.^^  Cecil,  there- 
fore, cautiously  encouraged  Knox  and  Kirkcaldy.  His  difficulty  was 
*with  Elizabeth.  She  detested  Knox  and  all  rebels  against  royal 
authority.  Noailles  advised  Henri  to  send  Mary  and  the  Dauphin 
to  Scotland,  where  their  presence  might  be  pacifying.  Arran's  flight 
from  Poitou,  the  mortal  wound  of  Henri  H.  in  a  tournament,  and 
news  of  a  French  expedition  to  Scotland,  coincided,  early  in  July. 
On  the  8th  Cecil  bade  the  Protestants  do  what  they  had  to  do 
quickly. ^^  On  the  death  of  Henri,  Throckmorton  reported  that  the 
new  queen,  Mary  Stuart,  "  trusts  to  be  Queen  of  Scotland "  (July 
ii).  On  July  19  the  Lords  of  the  Congregation  appealed  form- 
ally to  Elizabeth  for  aid.*^*^  But  as  England  delayed,  and  many  of 
the  Congregation  were  scattered,  while  Erskine,  in  the  castle,  threat- 
ened to  fire  on  them,  the  Brethren  on  July  24  evacuated  Leith  and 
Edinburgh,  d'Oysel  occupying  Leith.  An  arrangement  of  the  most 
confused  kind  had  been  made.     The  terms  are  thus  stated  : — 

1.  All  Protestants,  except  the  inhabitants,  shall  leave  Edinburgh 

on  the  24th. 

2.  They  shall  give  up  the  mint  stamps  and  Holy  rood ;   offering 

hostages  for  fulfilment. 

3.  They  shall  obey  the  laws,  except  as  to  faith. 

4.  They  shall   not   molest  the  clergy,  or   their   incomes,  before 

January  10,  nor  seize  their  rents. 

5.  Nor  attack  churches  or  monasteries. 

6.  Till  January  10  Edinburgh  shall  have  what  religion  it  chooses- 

7.  The   Regent   shall   not  molest   the   preachers,  nor  allow   the 

clergy  to  do  so.*"^ 


SINGULAR    STATEMENTS    OF    KNOX.  59 

Knox  says  that  his  party  drew  up  other  articles  to  this  effect : — 

1.  That  no  member  of  the  Congregation  should  in  any  way  be 

molested  for  the  late  innovations,  before  the  holding  of  a 
Parliament  on  January   10. 

2.  That   idolatry   should   not   be   erected   where   it   was,   at  the 

moment,  suppressed. 

3.  That  the  preachers  should  have  freedom  to  preach  everywhere 

they  chanced  to  come. 

4.  That  Edinburgh  should  not  be  garrisoned. 

5.  That  the  French  should  he  sent  away,   "  at  a  reasonable  day," 

and  no  more  brought  in,  without  assent  of  the  nobles  and 

Parliament. 
Knox  then  writes,  "  But  these  our  articles  were  altered,  and  another 
form  disposeth,  as  after  follows,"  and  then  cites  the  articles  of  which 
we  have  given  the  substance  (p.  58).  He  goes  on,  "This  alteration 
in  words  and  order  was  made  without  counsel  and  consent  of  those 
whose  counsel  we  had  used  in  all  cases  before."  He  appears  to 
mean  that  he  himself,  and  perhaps  other  preachers,  were  not  con- 
sulted. Before  leaving  Edinburgh,  the  Lords  published,  as  the  real 
agreement,  a  totally  different  version.  It  is  not  the  real  agreement, 
it  is  merely  the  arrangement  originally  proposed  by  the  Protestants, 
but  without  the  article  that  the  French  shall  be  all  dismissed  by 
a  reasonable  day.  The  Catholics  remonstrating  against  this  bad 
faith,  the  Brethren  declared  that  these  were  the  actual  terms  agreed 
upon,  "whatsoever  their  scribes  had  after  written."  Yet  Knox 
calmly  admits  that  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty,  as  given  above, 
securing  the  clergy  from  outrages,  was  suppressed,  as  "  to  proclaim 
anything  in  their  favours  we  thought  it  not  necessary,  knowing  that 
in  that  behalf  they  themselves  should  be  diligent  enough."  This  is 
remarkable  conduct  in  persons  so  sensitive  on  the  point  of  honour. 
Not  only  did  the  godly  accept  one  treaty,  and  proclaim  that  they 
had  accepted  another,  but  they  accused  the  Regent's  scribes  of 
fraudulently  altering  the  very  treaty  which  they  had  accepted,  and 
then  themselves  had  altered.^^  Moreover  Knox,  in  a  History  written 
almost  at  the  moment,  proclaims  this  complicated  iniquity  with 
cynical  candour.  The  charge  which  Knox  and  his  party  made 
against  "  the  scribes  "  is  untrue,  and  Knox  knew  it.  For  on  July 
24,  Kirkcaldy,  writing  to  Croft  from  Edinburgh,  announced  that 
his  faction  had  accepted  the  terms  of  the  Seven  Articles  as  we  give 
them.^^     We   need   no   longer   criticise  charges  of  perfidy  against 


60  PERFIDY   OF   ELIZABETH. 

Mary  of  Guise.  They  are  matched  by  the  confessed  perfidy  of  the 
godly. 

The  Brethren  retired  to  StirHng,  made  a  new  band,  and  kept  on 
asking  for  EngUsh  aid.  Knox,  in  his  History,  says  that  this  was 
done  because  they  distrusted  the  Regent.  He  does  not  here  say 
that  he  and  his  party  had  long  been  practising  with  Cecil.  In 
Edinburgh  the  Protestants  held  St  Giles'  Church,  and  were  shocked 
when  the  Regent  heard  mass  in  the  abbey.  In  the  first  days  of 
August  Knox  visited  Berwick,  His  instructions  as  to  dealing  with 
Croft  included  political  and  military  matters.  Alliance  and  aid,  in 
men  and  money,  were  desired.  Knox  returned,  with  Alexander 
Whitelaw,  an  English  spy,  on  August  3.  Whitelaw  was  unlucky. 
Lord  Seton,  mistaking  him  for  Knox,  broke  a  chair  on  him,  "  with- 
out any  occasion  offered  to  him."  Knox  reports  the  fact,  but  does 
not  here  say  that  he  himself  had  been  in  England.^*  As  Laing 
observes,  in  the  part  of  Knox's  History  which  was  written  almost  at 
the  time  of  the  events,  "  the  application  made  for  aid  from  England 
is  scarcely  alluded  to."^^  Naturally,  for  Knox  was  denying  that 
they  dealt  with  England.  Little  was  got  from  Cecil :  with  what 
"  authority  "  in  Scotland  could  he  treat  ?  He  hinted  that  Arran,  or 
Lord  James,  might  be  selected.  However,  the  Congregation  were 
not  wholly  neglected.  Elizabeth  sent  Sadleyr  to  Berwick,  and 
permitted  him  to  expend  ;^3ooo  in  the  interests  of  the  Brethren. 
He  was  to  be  very  secret,  so  as  not  to  be  found  infringing  the 
recent  treaty  of  peace  (August).^*" 

Thus  began  a  revival  of  the  old  English  aid  to  the  Protestant 
party.  On  the  very  day  when  Elizabeth  thus  enabled  Sadleyr 
to  foster  rebellion  in  Scotland,  she  also  wrote  to  Mary  of  Guise. 
She  said  that  Francis  II.  had  informed  her  that  her  Border 
officials  had  been  dealing  with  "  the  rebels."  She  asked  for  exact 
information,  "  that  we  may  take  order  for  punishing  the  guilty."^'' 
Elizabeth  continued  to  fable :  the  Congregation  and  the  Regent 
issued  proclamations  and  counter -proclamations :  French  troops 
arrived  at  Leith :  Arran  passed  from  France  through  England, 
and  met  Elizabeth.  She  did  not  lose  her  heart  to  him.  He 
joined  the  Congregation  at  Stirling  :  thence  the  Lords  passed  to 
Chatelherault,  at  Hamilton,  where  it  was  determined  to  resist  the 
fortification  of  Leith  by  the  Regent.^^  Of  all  things  the  Lords 
wanted  more  money  from  England.  They  bade  Mary  discontinue 
the    fortification    of    Leith :     she    declined,    and    on    October     1 5 


THE   OPEN    REBELLION.  6l 

Chatelherault,  Arran,  Argyll,  Glencairn,  Lord  James,  and  others 
entered  Edinburgh.  The  Regent  was  at  Leith.  There  began  a 
war  of  proclamations.  The  Brethren,  among  other  grievances, 
denounced  as  ruinous  the  introduction  of  French  soldiers  and  the 
fortifying  of  Leith.  Mary  replied  that  she  had  not  brought  in 
Frenchmen  till  the  Congregation  dealt  with  England ;  that  the 
attitude  of  the  Hamiltons,  next  heirs  to  the  Crown,  caused  sus- 
picion ;  that  the  godly  had  seized  and  fortified  Broughty  Castle, 
commanding  the  Tay,  Perth,  and  Dundee.  This  enterprise  had 
been  suggested  by  Knox  to  Croft  at  Berwick  on  July  31.  Finally, 
that  she  had  a  natural  right  to  provide  herself  with  a  city  of  refuge 
at  Leith.  In  answer,  the  nobles,  barons,  and  burghers,  on  October 
21,  deposed  Mary  of  Guise,  in  the  name  of  her  daughter  and 
son-in-law,   Francis  IL  and  Mary  Stuart.*^^ 

The  Regent  had  now  against  her  the  force  of  the  country,  the 
prestige  of  the  Hamiltons,  and  the  genius  of  Lethington,  who 
had  deserted  her.  Having  been  in  England  for  much  of  the  year 
on  the  matter  of  the  peace,  he  soon  succeeded  Knox  as  secretary 
to  the  Congregation.  But  that  body  had  its  internal  dissensions. 
First,  scaling-ladders  for  the  attack  of  Leith  were  being  made  in 
St  Giles'  Church,  "  so  that  preaching  was  neglected."  This  did 
not  suit  the  preachers.  "  God  would  not  suffer  such  contempt  of 
His  Word  long  to  be  unpunished."  The  Reeent  had  good  spies. 
Chatelherault  was  timid,  and  demoralised  the  other  Protestants, 
The  men  of  war  had  already  mutinied  for  want  of  pay,  and 
threatened  to  serve  any  man  that  would  set  up  the  mass  again. 
These  were  not  earnest  professors,  and  now  they  mutinied  afresh. 
"A  collection  was  made,"  but  few  subscribed.  Ormistoun  was 
sent  to  bring  money  from  Sadleyr  and  Croft,  but  Bothwell  way- 
laid and  wounded  him,  and  took  4000  crowns.  After  the  Dundee 
contingent  had  been  defeated,  with  loss  of  its  guns,  on  November 
5,  the  Congregation  were  severely  handled,  and  lost  the  Provost 
of  Dundee.  In  spite  of  Lethington's  advice,  the  Brethren  fled  to 
StirUng,  much  railed  upon  by  the  ungodly  of  Edinburgh.™  The 
Catholics  in  Edinburgh  seem  to  have  been  numerous,  even  at  a 
much  later  date,  but  they  were  unwarlike.  Lethington  was  now  . 
sent  by  the  Congregation  to  Elizabeth  (November  10).''^ 

Hitherto  the  Congregation  had  been,  they  declared,  innocent  as 
doves.  The  cry  had  been  "The  Word ! "  "Suppression  of  Idolatry !" 
But  at  this  juncture  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent  is  more  manifest.    We 


62  THE    WARS    OF   THE    CONGREGATION. 

might  attribute  the  change,  the  diplomatic  action,  to  the  counsels  of 
Lethington,  were  it  not  conspicuous  in  the  document  suppressing 
the  Regent  (October  21).  Here  is  no  unction,  no  godliness.  The 
Regent  is  arraigned  for  secular  offences,  and  the  document  ends 
with  a  bold  falsehood — "  the  hardy  affirmation,"  as  Mr  Hume  Brown 
says,  "  that  the  step  had  been  taken  in  the  name  and  authority  of 
their  two  sovereigns  now  in  France."  '^^  A  secular  spirit  dominates, 
probably  before  Lethington  came  in,  the  appeal  of  the  Lords  to  the 
princes  of  Christendom.'^^  That  statement  is  a  history,  and  aims  at 
proving  a  long  French  conspiracy  (which  doubtless  existed)  to  make 
Scotland  a  French  province.  Even  the  tolerance  of  the  Regent  is 
made  a  charge  against  her.  Tolerance  had  been  granted  to  Prot- 
estant rites,  if  conducted  privately  in  certain  places.  The  purpose, 
it  is  urged,  was  to  induce  the  nobles  to  incur  the  cruel  penalties  of 
ecclesiastical  law !  The  document  is  a  patriotic  appeal  against 
French  machinations.  The  old  tirades  against  idolatry  are  absent. 
The  precise  date  of  this  appeal,  conciliatory  to  Scottish  Catholics,  is 
unknown.  It  is  more  like  the  work  of  Lethington  than  of  Knox. 
Elizabeth  at  this  time  was  herself  no  better  than  an  idolater.  She 
was  restoring  the  crucifix  to  her  altar,  vestments  to  her  chaplains 
(October  9-27).^^  Elizabeth  must  be  propitiated,  hence  the  caution 
of  the  Brethren.  Knox  himself  suggested  to  Croft  the  very  trick 
which  he  denounces  when  practised  by  Pedro  Strozzi  for  France  in 
1548.  The  French  expedition  of  that  year  sailed  under  the  Red 
Lyon  of  Scotland ;  "  as  rebels  unto  France,  such  policy  is  no  falsett 
in  princes." ''°  Knox  now  asked  for  an  English  contingent ;  "  ye 
may  declare  them  rebels  to  your  realm."  ^^  Croft  was  not  sorry  to 
point  out  the  dishonour  and  futility  of  the  stratagem.'^''  Li  truth, 
the  assumption  of  the  English  arms  by  Mary  and  Francis  might  have 
been  taken  by  Elizabeth  as  a  breach  of  the  peace.  But  this  line  she 
did  not  openly  pursue.  She  did  aid  the  Reformers,  being  won  over 
by  Lethington. 

On  November  12  Cecil  sent  instructions  to  Croft  and  Sadleyr. 
It  is  clear,  he  says,  that  France  means  to  make  Scotland  a  base  as 
against  England.  To  avoid  open  breach  of  treaty  a  few  English  gun- 
ners and  engineers,  in  disguise,  may  be  lent  to  the  Brethren,  feigning  to 
be  mere  soldiers  of  fortune.  Guns  may  be  secretly  sent.  The  Lords 
should  address  Elizabeth,  inveighing  against  French  atrocities  done 
under  sanction  of  the  Regent.  They  must  say  that  they  took  up 
arms  to  defend  the  rightful  heirs  of  the  Crown — the   Hamiltons — 


PROTESTANT    LEAGUE   WITH    ENGLAND    (1560).  63 

while  they  remain  loyal  to  Queen  Mary.  They  must  say  that  the 
French  aim  is  to  conquer  England  and  Ireland.  They  must  urge 
that  their  assemblage  was  solely  designed  to  defend  their  country 
from  conquest.  Most  of  this  was  untrue.  Religion  was  the  primary 
cause  of  the  Rising.  Knox,  however,  bowed  down  in  the  house  of 
this  political  Rimmon.'^  By  December  2 1  Sadleyr  could  let  Arran 
and  Lord  James  know  that  the  English  fleet  was  coming  to  their 
aid.'^^  In  the  interval  the  Lords  had  been  sacking  Paisley  Abbey 
and  denouncing  idolaters,  under  the  pretended  authority  of  Francis 
and  Mary.  Their  proclamations  were  forgeries. ^°  Meanwhile  the 
French  had  occupied  Stirling,  and  were  invading  Fife,  where  both 
Arran  and  Lord  James  rebuffed  them  with  skill  and  courage. 
Huntly  was  pretending  that  he  would  aid  the  Lords  with  the 
forces  of  the  North  :  Lennox,  to  vex  Chatelherault,  was  urging 
his  own  claims  to  the  heirship  of  the  Crown.  The  French  schemes 
were  defeated  by  the  arrival  of  Winter,  with  an  English  fleet,  in 
the  Firth.  At  first  the  French  took  the  vessels  to  be  d'Elboeuf's 
reinforcements ;  on  discovering  the  truth  they  retreated,  in  distress, 
to  Leith.^^  The  condition  of  the  Queen-Regent  was  now  all  but 
desperate.  A  French  force  under  d'Elboeuf,  for  the  assistance  of 
the  Regent,  had  been  destroyed,  as  so  often  was  to  occur,  by  "a 
Protestant  wind."  The  Regent's  remonstrances  to  Elizabeth  were 
answered  by  cynical  prevarications.  Winter  lied  boldly  when  she 
censured  his  action.  The  Regent  herself,  within  the  walls  of  the 
castle,  was  slowly  dying.  Meanwhile  the  French  provisioned  Leith, 
wasting  the  country  as  far  as  Glasgow,  and  behaving,  says  Knox, 
with  horrid  cruelty.  One  poor  woman,  however,  tipped  a  French 
soldier  into  her  tub  of  salted  beef,  where  he  died  ingloriously. 

On  February  27,  1560,  at  Berwick,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  and 
deputies  from  the  Congregation  entered  into  a  league  against  Mary 
of  Guise.  Elizabeth  "  accepted  the  realm  of  Scotland  "  while  the 
marriage  of  Mary  and  Francis  should  last,  and  for  a  year  later; 
Chatelherault  being  recognised  as  next  heir  to  the  Crown,  and  the 
old  freedom  and  liberty  being  safeguarded.  As  Protector,  Elizabeth 
was  to  send  forces  to  aid  the  Congregation.  Hostages  were  to  be 
given.  But  no  due  obedience  was  to  be  withdrawn  from  Mary 
and  Francis  !  ^^  (In  INIay,  later,  this  document  was  signed  by  the 
nobles,  including  Huntly,  Morton,  and  the  Hamiltons.)^^  To  the 
castle  and  the  protection  of  Lord  Erskine  the  Regent  now  retired. 

In  March  diplomacy  was  busy,  while  an  English  army  was  prepar- 


64  THE   ENGLISH   BESIEGE   LEITH   (1560). 

ing  to  enter  Scotland.  Elizabeth's  position  was  insecure.  Philip  of 
Spain  might  strike  in,  as  he  threatened ;  and  her  love  of  Dudley, 
with  its  many  scandals  and  offences,  weakened  her  at  home.  Chatel- 
herault  was  said  to  have  written  a  letter  submitting  to  PVancis  and 
Mary :  the  letter  was  discovered,  and  he  had  to  deny  what  was  pro- 
duced as  his  own  handwriting.^'*  But,  on  the  other  hand,  France 
was  in  no  posture  to  succour  the  Regent.  The  Huguenot  con- 
spiracy of  Amboise,  fostered  by  Elizabeth,  aimed  at  killing  the 
Guises  and  bringing  up  Francis  II.  under  Protestant  rulers ;  so 
the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  informed  Mary  of  Guise  on  March  12.^^ 
The  French  Government  "knew  not  where  to  turn."  The  Bishop 
of  Valence  was  sent  to  London  to  treat :  the  French  would  be 
content  with  but  a  handful  of  men  in  Scottish  sea-forts.  This  was 
wisely  refused.  On  April  4  the  reforming  Scots  and  English,  now 
allies,  met  at  Prestonpans.  The  temporary  and  fugitive  character  of 
Scottish  feudal  levies  on  their  three  weeks'  service,  and  want  of 
money,  hampered  the  English  operations.  They  had  the  better  of  a 
preliminary  skirmish  against  the  garrison  of  Leith  ;  but  days  of 
negotiation  followed,  then  came  a  successful  sortie.  On  April  17 
the  English  silenced,  or  destroyed,  the  French  guns  on  the  steeple  of 
St  Anthony's  Hospital.  The  Scottish  Lords  assured  the  Regent 
that  they  were  the  most  loyal  of  subjects,  asking  no  more  than 
the  withdrawal  of  the  French.  Lord  Ogilvy  came  in  from  the  North, 
Lochinvar  and  Garlics  from  Galloway ;  but  Morton,  the  son  of  the 
foxlike  traitor.  Sir  George  Douglas,  still  wavered,  and  Huntly  prom- 
ised, but  waited  on  events,  exactly  as  Lovat  was  to  do  in  far  later 
times.  Soon  after  the  Bishop  of  Valence  arrived,  and  diplomacy 
hampered  the  operations.  The  Regent,  as  Norfolk  wrote,  could  not 
easily  make  terms  with  subjects  who  had  contracted  themselves  with, 
and  given  hostages  to,  a  foreign  prince.  She  had  hopes  from  Philip 
of  Spain,  which  came  to  nothing — a  fact  foreseen  by  Lethington. 
"  The  mark  I  always  shoot  at,"  wrote  Lethington,  "  is  the  union 
of  England  and  Scotland  in  perpetual  friendship," — a  noble  aim, 
but  not  possible  while  Mary  Stuart  was  Queen  of  Scotland.  The 
Lords,  with  their  perpetual  protest  of  loyalty,  and  in  face  of 
Elizabeth's  ideas  of  right  divine,  could  not  take  the  one  step 
which  might  have  prevented  the  coming  tragedies.  They  could 
not  simply  break  the  succession  and  place  Chatelherault  on  the 
throne.  Internal  jealousies  also  barred  the  way,  as  far  as  either  the 
House  of  Hamilton  or  Lord  James  (who  had  been  legitimated)  was 


HUNTLY   DESERTS   THE   REGENT.  6$ 

concerned.  Francis  II.  was  assuring  the  Regent  that  she  would 
be  reinforced  by  a  day  she  never  saw,  in  the  middle  of  July. 
The  dallying  negotiations  kept  Morton  and  Huntly  hanging  off; 
English  batteries  were  damaging  the  Leith  earthworks,  but  the 
French  had  much  the  better  of  it  in  a  sortie.  On  April  27,  the 
Regent  having  refused  the  Lords'  terms,  they  again  put  their 
names  to  a  band  binding  themselves  to  final  perseverance.  The 
French  must  be  expelled,  and  the  offices  of  State  must  be  held 
by  "  born  men  of  the  land."  Huntly  and  Morton  now  at  last 
entered  on  the  enterprise.  Huntly  had  stated  his  position  thus  : 
The  nobles  of  the  North,  with  the  Highlanders  and  Islesmen, 
were  in  a  pact  with  the  French  to  defend  "  the  auld  manner  of 
religion,"  and  he  dreaded  an  attack  from  them.  He  wished  also 
to  be  confirmed  in  his  local  authority,  almost  that  of  a  viceroy. 
The  Lords  reassured  him,  and  the  Catholic  Cock  of  the  North 
joined  the  Congregation  ! 

A  letter  from  the  Regent  discountenances  a  boasted  prophecy  of 
Knox.  On  April  29  she  writes  that  "one  of  her  legs  begins  to 
swell."  "You  know  there  are  but  three  days  for  the  dropsy  in  this 
country."  ^^  A  fire  had  broken  out  in  Leith,  but  on  May  i  the  gay 
defenders  crowned  the  walls  with  May-poles  and  May  garlands. 
On  May  7  the  besiegers  gave  the  assault.  They  found  no  practical 
breach,  and  the  scaling-ladders  (having  been  impiously  made  to  the 
disturbance  of  preaching)  were  six  feet  too  short.  The  gallant 
Scottish  leaguer-lassies  in  Leith,  true  to  the  Auld  Alliance,  loaded 
the  muskets  for  the  French,  and  poured  all  that  was  hot  and  heavy 
on  the  heads  of  the  assailants.  According  to  Sir  George  Howard 
(May  7),  the  assailants  lost  1000  men,  and  the  survivors  were  utterly 
disheartened.  Moreover,  "  the  union  of  hearts  "  of  Scots  and  English 
was  a  failure.  "We  are  so  well  esteemed  here  that  all  our  poor 
hurt  men  are  fain  to  lie  in  the  streets,  and  can  get  no  house-room 
for  money."  This  fact,  with  the  jeers  of  the  inhabitants  when  the 
Brethren  fled  in  November,  proves  that  the  English  alliance,  and 
perhaps  Protestantism,  were  unpopular.  The  sackings  and  sermons 
must  have  been  due  to  an  energetic  minority  ;  the  majority  being 
"respectables,"  unarmed,  timid,  and  unorganised.  Norfolk  now 
sent  to  England  for  money  and  reinforcements.  The  English  were 
deserting  :  even  money  brought  in  very  few  Scots.  Famine  was  the 
hope  of  the  besiegers.  Knox  says  that  the  Regent  beheld  the  battle 
of  May  7  from  the  castle,  and  laughed,  and  went  to  mass  when  she 

VOL.     II.  E 


^6  KNOX'S   SAFE   PROPHECY. 

saw  the  Lilies  float  victorious  on  the  walls  of  Leith.  The  French 
having  stripped  the  dead,  and  left  the  white  bodies  below  the  wall, 
the  Regent  said,  "  Yonder  are  the  fairest  tapestry  that  ever  I  saw," 
and  wished  that  the  whole  interjacent  fields  were  in  like  wise  carpeted. 
In  those  days  there  were  green  fields  between  Edinburgh  Castle  and 
Leith,  and  no  smoke.  Conceivably  the  Regent,  if  long-sighted, 
may  have  seen  a  line  of  corpses.  Knox  replied  from  the  pulpit, 
and  prophesised  "  that  God  should  revenge  that  contumely  done 
to  his  image,  .  .  .  even  in  such  as  rejoiced  themselves."  "And 
the  very  experience  declared  that  he  was  not  deceived,  for  within  few 
days  thereafter  (yea,  some  say  that  same  day)  began  her  belly  and 
loathsome  legs  to  swell." S''  But,  as  the  Regent's  letter  of  April  29, 
already  quoted,  shows,  her  dropsy  began  before  that  day,  and  she 
expected  death.  If  Knox  knew  this  (and  the  Regent's  letter  as  to 
her  dropsy  had  been  intercepted  by  his  party),  he  prophesied  on  a 
certainty  and  after  the  event  :  in  any  case,  the  premonitions  on 
which  he  plumes  himself  were  erroneous.  His  inspirations  made 
part  of  his  influence,  or  he  tried  to  use  them  in  that  way,  so  the 
facts  are  worth  noting. 

On  May  10  the  Regent  proposed  a  conference  "to  save  Christian 
blood."  Lord  James,  Ruthven,  Lethington,  and  the  Master  of 
Maxwell  were  sent  to  her.  She  had  asked  for  Huntly  and  Glencairn. 
Mary  said  that  she  was  desirous  to  "  remove  the  French."  The 
envoys,  however,  found,  as  Lethington  reports,  that  she  could  not 
"  digest "  their  compact  with  England.  She  asked  leave  to  see 
d'Oysel  and  another  Frenchman  (indeed  how  could  she  treat  with- 
out them  ?),  but  this  was  refused.  Probably  she  wept.  "  Her 
blubbering  is  not  for  nothing,"  Norfolk  said.  "  Few  days  in  the 
week  does  she  otherwise,"  wrote  Grey.  The  Regent  died  after 
midnight  on  June  10.  She  had  seen  Chatelherault,  the  Earl 
Marischal,  and  Lord  James,  with  whom  she  spoke  for  an  hour. 
These  critics  "  found  her  mind  well  disposed  to  God,  and  willing 
to  hear  anything  that  is  well  spoken."  With  a  supreme  courtesy 
she  listened  to  Willock  the  preacher.^  Knox  must  have  heard 
what  passed  from  Willock,  perhaps  also  from  Lord  James.  He 
declares  that  Mary  repented  of  her  policy,  and  blamed  Huntly  and 
her  "  friends  " — the  Guises,  as  in  Scots  "  friend  "  means  "  relation." 
The  Lords  wished  her  to  send  for  "  some  godly  learned  man,  for 
these  ignorant  Papists  that  were  about  her  understood  nothing 
of  the    mystery   of  our   Redemption."     She  admitted   to   Willock 


DEATH   OF   MARY   OF   GUISE.  67 

"that  there  was  no  salvation  but  in  and  by  the  death  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  as  surely  any  orthodox  Catholic  might  do.  Some  said 
that  she  was  "anointed  of  the  Papistical  manner."  It  is  prob- 
able that  she  was.  The  apostle  least  loved  of  Knox,  St  James, 
was  her  warrant.^^  The  same  author  writes,  "  The  wisdom  that  is 
from  above  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy  to  be 
entreated,  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits,  without  partiality,  and  with- 
out hypocrisy."  Little,  indeed,  of  this  wisdom  prevailed  in  either 
party  at  this  period.  In  the  Regent  at  her  death  we  see  this  spirit, 
and  almost  in  her  alone.  "  She  embraced,  and  with  a  smiling 
countenance  kissed  the  nobles,  one  by  one,  and  to  those  of  inferior 
rank  who  stood  by  she  gave  her  hand  to  kiss,  as  a  token  of  her 
kindness  and  dying  charity."  "^ 

Knox  shows  his  charity,  after  his  narrative  of  her  death,  by  a 
sneer  at  the  legitimacy  of  her  child.  Queen  Mary.  She  has  no 
spark  of  any  virtue  of  King  James  V.,  "  whose  daughter  she  is 
called."  ^^  Perhaps  Knox  owed  his  life  to  the  Regent.  Throck- 
morton reports,  on  the  evidence  of  the  official  of  the  Archbishop 
of  St  Andrews,  that  Mary  of  Guise  was  advised,  by  the  Bishop 
of  Amiens  and  others,  to  call  a  full  Parliament  and  turn  it  inco  a 
Bartholomew  massacre.  D'Oysel  would  not  permit  the  massacre, 
and  the  Regent's  good-nature  could  not  agree  with  such  extremity 
and  cruelty.^^  Before  the  Regent's  death  Cecil  and  other  com- 
missioners had  been  negotiating  with  French  envoys  for  peace 
at  Newcastle.  On  June  16  they  moved  to  Edinburgh,  and  long 
negotiations  ensued.  A  week's  armistice  permitted  French  and 
English  to  lunch  on  Leith  roads  :  the  French  brought  a  capon, 
roasted  rats,  and  horse-pie ;  the  English  contributed  better  pro- 
vender. Randolph  was  struck  by  certain  of  the  godly,  who  publicly 
confessed  their  sins  after  sermon,  a  practice  more  entertaining  than 
edifying.  He  hoped  to  see  the  Archbishop's  mistress  do  penance, 
but  probably  he  was  disappointed  (June  22).^^ 

The  treaties,  which  were  at  length  concluded  on  July  6,  were  a 
fertile  source  of  mischief.  Francis  and  Mary  had  given  their  repre- 
sentatives the  fullest  powers  conceivable,  "even  though  something 
should  fall  out  which  might  appear  to  require  a  more  copious  in- 
struction."^* Yet,  on  a  point  concerning  the  usurpation  of  the 
English  arms  and  title  by  Mary  and  Francis,  the  French  emissaries 
denied  that  they  had  authority  to  treat  or  conclude  "  concerning 
these  particulars."  ^^     The  treaty  with   England  confirmed   that  of 


68  THE   TREATY   OF   EDINBURGH   (1560) 

Cateau   Cambresis   (which   Elizabeth    had   broken).      It   then   pro- 
vided for — 

(i.)  The   removal   of   French   and  English   forces,   except    120 

French  in  Dunbar  and  Inchkeith. 
(ii.)  All  warlike  preparations  were  to  cease, 
(iii.)  Eyemouth  was  to  be  dismantled,  a  Berwickshire  sea  citadel, 
(iv.)  Mary    and    Francis   were   to   disuse   the   English   title    and 

arms, 
(v.)  On  certain  points  connected  with  this,  Philip  of  Spain  was 

to  arbitrate,  if  necessary. 
(vi.)  By  a  vague  and  shuffling  clause  Elizabeth  was  recognised  as 
having  not  wrongfully  contracted  her  engagement  with  the 
Lords.      That  Elizabeth  had  any  kind  of  right  to  Scottish 
allegiance  (as  under  the  treaty  of  Berwick,  February  27), 
the  French  envoys  had  determined  to  deny.^*^   The  French 
had  "  special  instructions  which  they  could  not  disobey, 
.  .  .  not  to  dishonour  their  master  with  noting  that  he 
was  forced  by  the  Queen  of  England  to  observe  anything 
towards  his  own  subjects."  ^'^ 
Now,    if  the   shuffling   clause   (see  Keith,  i.   294)   admitted  the 
right  of  the  Lords  to   contract  with  Elizabeth,   Mary  and  Francis 
had  also  a  right  to  refuse  to  ratify  a  clause  concluded  against  their 
precise  orders.     And  if  the  clause  meant  mere  compliment,  as,  on 
the  face  of  it,  it  does,  for  the  purposes  of  the  Lords  and  Elizabeth 
it  was  valueless.     The  clause  asserted  that  Mary  and  Francis  desired 
to  have  their  benignity  to  their  subjects  attributed  to  the  good  offices 
of  Elizabeth,  and  therefore  Mary  and  Francis  shall  fulfil  all  the  con- 
cessions now  granted  to  their  subjects.     If  this  means  anything,  it 
means  that  Elizabeth  exercised  interference  between  the  Scots  and 
their  king  and  queen.       Mary  and  Francis    could  not    ratify  that. 
Meanwhile,  what  were  the  terms  arranged  on  July  6  between  Mary 
Stuart  and  her  rebels  ? — 

(i.)  No  foreign  soldiers  were  henceforth  to  be  introduced  without 
the  consent  of  the  Estates,  and  only  120  French  were  to 
remain  in  Inchkeith  and  Dunbar, 
(ii.)  The  works  at  Leith  were  to  be  demolished, 
(iii.)  Mary  and   Francis  were  to  pay  the  arrears  of  the  French 

troops, 
(iv.)  A  Parliament  might  be  called  on  July  10,   and  adjourned 
till  August  I,  if  Francis  and  Mary  consent ;  business  not 


THE   TREATY   OF   EDINBURGH   (1560).  69 

to  be  done  till  August   i.     The  Parliament  is  to  be  as 
valid  as  if  called  by  command  of  Mary  and  Francis, 
(v.)  War  and  peace  shall  not  be  made  without  consent  of  the 
Estates. 

(vi.)  The  Estates  shall  select  twenty-four  persons,  out  of  whom 
jNIary  shall  choose  seven,  the  Estates  five,  to  be  a 
Council  of  twelve. 

(vii.)  No  strangers  nor  clergy  shall  occupy  high  offices. 

(viii.)  Proclaims  a  general  amnesty,  except  to  persons  whom  the 
Estates  deem  unworthy. 

(ix.)  Parliament   shall   be   summoned  according  to  custom,  and 

those  shall  appear  who  have  been  wont  to  appear, 
(x.)  Old  scores  between  the  Congregation  and   persons  not  of 
the  Congregation  shall  be  forgotten. 

(xi.)  This  also  applies  to  the  French, 

(xii.)  All  armed  gatherings  not  by  order  of  Council  shall  be  held 
rebellious. 

(xiii.)  Complaints  of  aggrieved  clerics  shall  be  considered  by  the 
Estates,  and  reasonable  reparation  made.  The  property 
and  persons  of  the  clergy  shall  not  be  disturbed,  and  dis- 
turbers shall  be  pursued  by  the  nobility, 

(xiv.)  The  nobles  are  to  bind  themselves  to  keep  these  terms. 

(xv.)  Deprived  Scots,  as  Chatelherault,  are  to  be  restored  to  their 
French  properties,  and  the  third  son  of  Chatelherault  re- 
leased from  prison  at  Vincennes. 

(xvi.)  Relates  to  the  artillery  in  the  country  :  what  is  to  be  restored 

to  France,  what  left, 
(xvii.)  As  to  matters  of  religion,  the  nobles  shall  send  representatives 
to  Francis  and  Mary ;  these  men  shall  carry  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treaty  by  the  Estates,  and  receive  the  ratifica- 
tion by  the  king  and  queen. ^^ 
Peace  was  now  proclaimed,  but  it  was  no  peace. 


70  NOTES. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    III. 

*  Knox,  i.  276-290. 

-  Knox  dates  this  on  April  28,  after  the  Remonstrance  of  the  Lords  of  the  Con- 
gregation to  the  Regent.  But  the  Remonstrances  were  apparently  made  in  July 
and  in  November  1558  (Knox,  i.  302-309;  Keith,  i.  181,  note  i). 

^  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  505.  ••  Pitscottie,  xxii.  23. 

^  Buchanan,  fol.  189  ;  Lesley,  496.  *  Knox,  i.  257-261. 

'  Buchanan,  fol.  190;  Keith,  i.  179,  180.  ^  Knox,  i.  307. 

^  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  502,  504.  ^^  Knox,  i.  309-314. 

^^  Kennedy  in  Miscellany  of  Wodrow  Society,  i,  97-174. 

^2  Miscellany,  Wodrow  Society,  i.  261-277.  '^  Knox,  i.  315. 

^^  Knox,  i.  315,  316.     Buchanan  here  reads  like  a  translation  of  Knox. 

^^  Robertson,  Statut.  Eccles.  Scot.,  i.  civ,  clxiii. 

16  Wodrow  Miscellany,  i.  55,  56.  "  Knox,  i.  317-319. 

18  Hill  Burton,  iv.  65.  ^^  Tytler,  vi.  98  (vi.  114,  115.     1S37). 

2''  M'Crie,  Life  of  Knox,  i.  257.     1831. 

^1  Froude,  vi.  227  (1898),  note  i,  citing  Croft's  letter  of  May  19. 

^2  Knox,  i.  318,  319.  ^^  Knox,  vi.  21-27. 

-*  The  proceedings  are  published  by  Dr  M'Crie  from  the  Treasurer's  Accounts. 

-^  Wodrow  Miscellany,  i.  57.  ^  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  ii.  4,  note  i. 

^  Calendar,  i.  212,  213.  Croft's  actual  words  are  less  explicit  than  the  version 
in  the  Calendar. 

2^  Buchanan,  fol.  igo.  ^'*  Knox,  i.  322,  323.  ^'^  Knox,  vi.  23. 

"^1  Knox,  i.  324  ;  Keith,  i.  193  ;  Froude,  vi.  229. 

^^  Knox,  i.  326,  327.  ^^  Knox,  i.  329-336. 

34  Lesley,  p.  497.  ^^  Knox,  i.  339,  345. 

^  Wodrow  Miscellany,  i.  58.  The  band  pledging  the  godly  to  these  acts,  and 
signed  by  Lord  James  and  Argyll,  is  in  Knox,  i.  344,  345. 

•*''  Archives  des  Affaires  Etrangeres.     Angleterre,  xv.  foil.  24,  25,  26,  27,  MS. 

^*  Knox,  i.  345  ;  Wodrow  Miscellany,  i.  59.  '^^  Knox,  i.  346,  note  i. 

*"  See  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  i.  345,  note  2.  ^^  Sadleyr,  i.  84. 

42  Knox,  i.  383.  4^  Knox,  i.  343. 

**  Knox  is  the  authority  for  this  measure,  in  his  letter  to  Mrs  Locke  (Knox,  vi. 
23).  Dr  Hay  Fleming  observes  that  death  was  also  denounced,  by  Scots  law, 
against  poachers  who  shot  "at"  wild  fowls,  and,  by  Mary  of  Guise,  against  eaters 
of  flesh  in  Lent  (Mary  Stuart,  p.  219). 

*^  Knox,  i.  347. 

^  Knox,  i.  347,  349  :  the  dates  are  rather  confused.  *^  Knox,  i.  353,  354. 

^  Knox,  i.  365  ;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  337.  ^^  Knox,  ii.  22. 

^^  Teulet,  Documents  Relatifs  i  I'Histoire  d'Ecosse,  i.  312,  June  21.    Paris,  1862. 

51  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  316.  ^^  ^ox.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  340,  341. 

^^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  349,  350.  *^  Knox,  i.  366.  ^^  Knox,  i.  369. 

56  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  208.  "  ^ox.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  313. 

58  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  357.  ^9  Yox.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  365. 

60  For.  Cal.  Eliz,,  i.  389.  ^^  For.  CaL  Eliz.,  i.  406,  407. 

62  Knox,  i.  376-381.  63  Calendar,  Bain,  i.  231-234. 

^*  Knox,  i.  392,  393.     Cf.  ii.  32.  65  Knox,  ii.  33,  note  I. 

66  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  i.  459,  460.  67  Teulet,  i.  340,  341. 


NOTES.  71 

*^  Knox  to  Croft,  St  Andrews,  Sept.  21.     Works,  vi.  79-81. 

^^  Knox,  i.  444-449.  '"'*  Knox,  i.  465.  ''■  Calendar,  i.  263. 

^-  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  ii.  52.  ^^  Teulet,  ii.  i  et  seq. 

"^^  De  Quadra  to  the  Bishop  of  Arras.     Froude,  vi.  268,  note. 

"'^  Knox,  i.  216.  ''^  Calendar,  i.  256,  October  25. 

""  Sadleyr,  i.  524.  ^^  Sadleyr,  i.  570-573. 

''^  Sadleyr,  i.  649.  ^^  Keith,  i.  246-248. 

^^  For.  Cal.,  ii.  329-334.  For  the  general  affairs  of  the  war,  Knox  to  Railton, 
January  29,  1560,  p.  344. 

8-  Keith,  i.  25S-260.  ^^  Knox,  ii.  53. 

^  March  21.     Calendar,  i.  335.  ^^  Calendar,  i.  331. 

*^  Calendar,  i.  389.  ^  Knox,  ii.  68. 

^*  Randolph,  June  8.     Calendar,  i.  422.  ^  James  v.  14.         ^^  Keith,  i.  279. 

®^  Knox,  ii.  72.  The  account  of  the  siege  of  Leith,  and  of  the  Regent's  death, 
is  mainly  from  Mr  Bain's  Calendar,  vol.  i.,  and  from  Knox.  Mr  Froude  gives  a 
full  and  lucid  account  of  the  diplomatic  embroilments  with  France  and  Spain  at 
this  moment,  but  these  are  parts  of  English  rather  than  of  Scottish  history.  There 
is  a  MS.  diary  of  the  siege  in  the  French  Foreign  Office  archives,  which  I  have 
consulted  ;  and  there  are  letters  on  the  Regent's  death  from  Captain  CuUen 
(Affaires  Etrangeres.     Angleterre,  xv.  foil.  I13-119). 

"-  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iii.  344.     October  10,  1560.  ^^  Calendar,  i.  430. 

®^  Keith,  i.  308.  "*  Keith,  i.  293. 

^^  Froude,  vi.  377,     De  Quadra  to  Philip,  June  7. 

"''  Froude,  vi.  394.     Cecil  to  Elizabeth,  July  2.  '*  Keith,  i.  298-306. 


Note. 

The  archives  of  the  French  Foreign  Office  contain  a  hitherto  unpublished 
report  from  d'Oysel  to  Francis  and  Mary.  They  had  asked  in  November  1559 
for  full  information,  and  d'Oysel  had  consulted  "black  Mr  John  Spens,"  later 
accused  of  a  share  in  Darnley's  murder.  Spens  then  e.^amined  a  cloud  of 
witnesses  as  to  the  rebellion  of  Chatelherault  and  Arran,  and  their  deposition  of 
the  Regent.  We  learn  that  they  compelled  James  Cortry,  or  Cokky,  to  engrave  a 
counterfeit  seal  of  Mary  and  Francis,  which  they  used  on  their  various  proclama- 
tions and  public  letters.  The  same  artist  was  employed  to  make  new  dies  for 
fresh  coinage.  Of  the  letters  an  example  is  given  (January  24,  1560),  an  appeal 
to  Errol  to  join  the  Congregation.  The  writers  announce  that  they  have  sought 
English  aid  :  solely  in  the  interest  of  Liberty  and  pure  Religion.  The  first  name 
among  those  who  sign  is  "James"  (a  royal  signature),  indicating  Lord  James 
Stewart,   Mary's  natural  brother. 

There  follows  the  record  of  a  curious  kind  of  trial  of  the  r^els,  held  at  Holy- 
rood  (?)  in  February  1560.  The  first  witness  is  James  Beaton,  Archbishop  of 
Glasfjow.  Another  witness  is  Lord  Robert  Stewart,  Mary's  natural  brother. 
A  third  is  James,  Earl  of  Bothwell,  "aged  twenty-four  years,  or  thereabout,"  so 
that  Bothwell  was  a  man  of  thirty  or  thirty-one  when  he  married  the  queen. 
The  seal-maker  appeared,  and  told  how  he  was  compelled  to  make  a  counterfeit 
seal,  which  Arran  at  once  used  to  seal  two  letters  in  his  presence. 

For  the  rest,  the  record  rather  corroborates  than  adds  to  our  information. 
(Affaires  Etrangeres.     Angleterre,  xv.  131 -153,  MS.) 


72 


CHAPTER    IV. 


THE    REFORMATION    CONSUMMATED. 


1560-I561. 

The  Peace  of  Edinburgh  brought  no  peace  but  a  sword.  The 
reason  is  that  the  treaty  was  never  ratified  by  Francis  and  Mary.  In 
their  refusal,  implying  the  persistence  of  Mary's  claim  to  the  English 
throne,  began  the  deadly  feud  with  Elizabeth  which  only  closed 
when  the  axe  fell  at  Fotheringay.  It  has  been  said,  perhaps  with 
truth,  that  the  ratification  was  denied  on  account  of  the  clause 
requiring  the  utter  renunciation  of  the  style  and  arms  of  England. 
"  Yet  it  was  necessary  that  this  reason  should  not  be  uttered  by 
Mary,  and  that  procrastinations,  devices,  and  casual  excuses  should 
be  found  for  withholding  the  ratification  which  had  been  emphati- 
cally promised  to  whatever  terms  the  representatives  of  France 
would  conclude."  ^  We  have  already  seen  that  their  powers  were 
absolute,  but  that  the  French  envoys  had  instructions  not  to  submit 
to  any  claim,  on  Elizabeth's  part,  to  interfere  with  Mary's  rebels. 
But  such  claim  had  been  passed,  or  been  insinuated  into  clause  vi. 
(p.  68)  of  the  treaty  with  England.^  How  far  this  contravention  of 
private  instructions  invalidated  the  public  commission  to  the  envoys, 
diplomatists  must  decide.  But,  that  question  apart,  the  ratification 
of  the  concessions  to  the  Lords  depended  on  their  fulfilment  of  cer- 
tain clauses  in  the  arrangement  with  them.  These  conditions  they 
broke — "impudently  violated,"  says  M.  Philippson,  the  biographer 
of  Mary,  who  does  not  think  that  this  affected  the  English  treaty.^ 
Francis  and  Mary  had  thus  a  right  not  to  ratify  the  Scottish  agree- 
ment, with  which,  however,  the  English  treaty,  by  clause  vi.  {supra), 
seemed  to  them  to  be  linked.  Mr  Hume  Brown  remarks  that,  while 
"  there  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  the  legality  of  the  meeting  of 


THE   PROTESTANTS   INFRINGE   THE   TREATY.  73 

the  Scottish  Estates," — which  followed  the  treaty, — "  the  question 
is  set  at  rest  by  certain  letters  of  Francis  II.  himself.  From  these 
letters  it  distinctly  appears  that  Francis  regarded  the  treaty  of  Edin- 
burgh as  perfectly  valid."*  He  did, — until  the  conditions  of  the 
treaty  were  broken  by  the  Estates,  before  it  was  submitted  to  him  for 
ratification.  His  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Limoges,  his  ambassador 
in  Spain,  is  of  July  28.  Despite  the  injustice  of  the  terms,  he  says, 
he  puts  up  with  them,  je  me  suis  accomode.  But  when  even  the 
hard  conditions  were  infringed,  the  whole  case  was  altered.  Mr 
Tytler  says,  "  We  cannot  blame  either  Mary  or  the  Guises  for  their 
steady  refusal  to  ratify  the  treaty."  ^  In  what  manner  the  Estates 
broke  the  conditions  will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  narrative. 

The  first  important  step  of  the  Lords  was  taken  on  July  19.  A 
public  thanksgiving  was  held,  Knox  officiating,  at  St  Giles'.  There- 
after the  Commissioners  of  the  Burghs,  with  certain  nobles  and 
barons,  appointed  districts  to  preachers.  All  such  religious  matters, 
it  may  be  argued,  had  been  explicitly  omitted  by  the  negotiators  of 
the  arrangement  (clause  xvii.)  It  was  there  provided  that  the 
"  Convention  of  Estates  "  shall  send  "  some  persons  of  quality  "  to 
Francis  and  Mary,  "  and  remonstrate  to  them  the  state  of  their 
affairs,"  especially  as  to  religion.  Religion,  said  the  treaty,  is  of 
such  importance  that  these  and  other  questions  are  judged  proper 
"to  be  remitted  to  the  king  and  queen."  But  no  "persons  of 
quality "  were  ever  sent,  either  to  "  remonstrate "  or  to  carry  the 
ratification.  One  man  only  was  sent,  much  later,  Sandilands, 
second  son  of  Sandilands  of  Calder,  and  he  of  quality  deemed  not 
"  sufficient."  « 

In  the  distribution  of  districts,  Knox  took  St  Giles'  in  Edinburgh ; 
Methven,  "  to  whom  was  no  iniquity  then  known,"  got  Jedburgh. 
Aberdeen,  Perth,  Leith,  Dundee,  and  Dunfermline  were  also  pro- 
vided for.  As  "  Superintendents,"  Lothian  received  John  Spottis- 
woode,  of  an  old  house,  later  Cavalier ;  Willock  took  Glasgow ; 
Erskiije  of  Dun  (a  layman)  Angus  and  the  Mearns ;  Carswall  saw  to 
Argyll  and  the  Isles ;  and  Fife  was  committed  to  the  versatile 
Wynram,  sub-prior  of  St  Andrews,  who  had  sat  at  the  trial  of  George 
Wishart.  Many  of  the  clergy  of  St  Andrews  were,  like  him,  brands 
plucked  from  the  burning.  The  Reformation  was,  in  great  part,  the 
work  of  the  "  advanced  "  clergy,  but  Wynram  came  in  late. 

The  Parliament,  opened  on  July  10,  met  and  began  business  on 
August  I.     The  treaty  was  infringed  at  once,  in  a  point  of  great 


74  DETAILS   OF   THE   INFRINGEMENT. 

constitutional  interest.  It  had  been  provided  (clause  ix.)  that  "  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  all  those  to  be  present  at  that  meeting  who  are  in 
use  to  be  present :  tons  ceux  qui  ont  accoustumes  de  s''y  trouver."  ^ 
But  crowds  of  persons  not  "  accustomed  to  be  there  "  appeared  and 
claimed  seats.  This  was  "  an  unusual  element,"  says  Mr  Hume 
Brown,  and,  as  being  unusual,  it  was  forbidden  by  the  treaty.  The 
treaty  did  not  say,  "  All  may  appear  who  by  an  ancient  and  disused 
custom  or  Act  have  a  right  to  appear."  The  right  was  strictly  limited 
by  customary  usage.  "  In  a  space  of  seventy-three  years  scarcely  had 
one  of  the  inferior  gentry  appeared  in  Parliament.  And  therefore 
I  know  not  but  it  may  be  deemed  somewhat  unusual  for  a  hundred 
of  them  to  jump  all  at  once  into  Parhament,"  says  Bishop  Keith, 
perhaps  especially  as  the  treaty  had  prohibited  the  "jump."^  "  Jt 
had  to  be  pointed  out  to  the  House  that  their  claim  went  so  far 
back  as  the  reign  of  James  I."  (in  1427).  The  Act  of  James  I.* 
said  that  the  "  small  barons  need  not  come  to  Parliament,"  and 
that  consequently  representatives  were  to  be  chosen  on  the  English 
system.  This  never  held,  and  the  claim  of  small  barons  rested  on 
an  ancient  and  an  unrepealed  but  disused  Act,  or  on  obsolete 
custom.  It  was  an  infringement  of  centuries  of  usage,  unless  the 
barons  were  duly  elected  on  James's  plan.  Their  plea  was  referred 
to  the  Lords  of  the  Articles,  and  they  seem  to  have  sat  and  voted/'*^ 
Six  were  added  to  the  Lords  of  the  Articles ;  if  the  practice  worked 
well  it  was  to  be  ratified  as  a  perpetual  law.^^ 

Another  point  arose.  Between  July  10  and  August  i  the  treaty 
provided  that  "  the  Lords  Deputies  "  shall  send  envoys  to  Francis 
and  Mary,  reporting  the  permission  to  hold  a  Parliament  (or  Con- 
vention), "and  supplicate  them  most  humbly  that  they  would  be 
pleased  to  agree."  ^^  Was  any  such  deputation,  ever  sent  ?  Had 
Francis  and  Mary  been  "  pleased  to  agree  "  ?  Certainly  not  before 
August  10,  as  we  learn  from  Randolph,  writing  to  Cecil  on  that 
date.  "Their  first  sitting  will  be  on  Thursday,"  the  15th.  "They 
intend  shordy  to  send  Dingwall,  the  Herald,  to  France  with  the 
names  they  choose "  (for  the  Council),  "  attd  for  the  king's  and 
queen^s  consent  to  this  Parliaments^ '^'^  Between  the  loth  and  the 
17th  August,  when  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  passed  en  bloc, 
Dingwall  could  not  go  to  France  and  return  with  the  royal  consent. 
Mr  Hume  Brown  writes:  "The  treaty  had  been  signed  on  July  6, 
and  since  that  date  there  had  been  time  for  a  royal  commissioner 
to  arrive  in  Scotland."  Yes,  but  nobody  had  been  sent  by  the 
Lords,  as  under  treaty,  to  ask  for  a  royal  commissioner.      "  But  by 


A   REVOLUTIONARY   CONVENTION    (1560).  75 

the  very  fixing  of  the  meeting  of  Estates  at  so  early  a  date  it  had 
been  implied  that  no  commissioner  was  needed  to  constitute  the 
meeting  a  legal  assembly."  ^^  Three  \Yeeks  had  been  granted  by  the 
treaty  for  the  very  purpose  of  enabling  the  Estates  to  legalise  their 
meeting.     They  did  not  adopt  the  necessary  means. 

The  Arrangement  of  Edinburgh  was  torn  to  rags  by  the  Estates. 
The  Convention  which  established  the  new  Creed  was  absolutely 
illegal.  This,  however,  is  a  matter  of  mere  academic  interest.  The 
Convention  was  revolutionary,  and  revolutions  are  laws  to  them- 
selves. The  assemblage  of  the  "  small  barons  "  to  consult  on  the 
public  affairs  would  have  marked,  if  continued  in  practice,  a  benef- 
icent advance  in  the  national  and  political  education  of  Scotland. 
In  older  Parliaments  from  ten  to  twenty  greater  barons  would 
gather.  In  1560  we  count  one  hundred  and  six  small  barons,  all 
of  noble  names,  including  Sandilands  of  Calder,  whose  quality  was 
insufficient.  It  is  curious  to  observe  how  many  of  the  names  are 
still  attached  to  the  old  lands. -^^  There  are  only  five  Celtic  names, 
and  these  from  the  low  countries,  with  one  Campbell  of  Glen- 
urquhard.  There  is  not  a  single  "  Mac."  In  the  Regent  Moray's 
Parliament  of  1567  the  crowd  of  small  barons  is  conspicuously 
absent :  so  far  from  the  "  custom "  insisted  on  by  the  treaty  was 
this  revolutionary  assembly.  Meanwhile  "the  bishops  dare  not 
come  out  of  the  castle  for  hatred  of  the  common  people,"  wrote 
Cecil  on  June  21.^^  Apparently  it  was  the  crowd  of  new-comers, 
with  the  burgesses,  who  now  put  in  a  petition  to  the  Estates.  They 
asked  for  condemnation  of  the  "  pestiferous  errors  "  of  the  Church. 
The  clergy  "  live  in  whoredom  and  adultery,  deflowering  virgins 
and  corrupting  matrons."  Remedy  is  invited.  As  the  Pope  "  takes 
upon  him  the  distribution  and  possession  of  the  whole  patrimony 
of  the  Church"  (which,  really,  had  in  Scotland  long  been  seized 
by  the  nobles  for  their  cadets),  the  Word  is  neglected,  learning 
despised,  schools  not  provided  for,  and  the  poor  "not  only  de- 
frauded of  their  portion,  but  scandalously  oppressed."  This  must 
be  remedied.  The  Pope,  in  fact,  was  not  evicting  poor  cottars, 
and  the  remedy,  in  some  ways,  proved  no  better  than  the  disease. 
The  petitioners  offer  to  prove  that  "  there  is  not  one  lawful  minister 
in  all  the  rabble  of  the  clergy."  They  are  all  "  thieves,  murderers, 
rebels,  and  traitors."  Let  them  answer  to  the  charge,  or  be  rend- 
ered incapable  of  a  voice  in  Parliament. ^"^ 

After  a  harangue  by  the  Speaker,  Lethington,  and  preliminaries, 
the  petition  was  read,  and  certain  ministers  were  asked  to  draw  up 


^6       '  CONFESSION    OF   FAITH. 

a  Confession  of  the  Faith  of  Scotland  for  the  future.  This  was 
done  in  four  days.  The  Lords  of  the  Articles  had  been  chosen, 
the  Spiritual  by  the  Temporal,  the  burgesses  by  themselves.  "  The 
two  old  bishops  are  none  of  the  [Lords  of  the]  Articles."  ^^  In 
fact,  the  "  Spiritual "  Lords  now  included  laymen,  like  Lord  James 
and  others,  holders  of  Church  lands  and  titles.  The  Confession 
seems  to  have  been  ready  about  August  15,  and  the  Archbishop  of 
St  Andrews  was  permitted  to  have  a  copy.  The  document  had 
been  first  submitted  to  Lethington  and  Wynram,  men  of  this  world. 
Randolph  says  that  they  "  mitigated  the  austerity  of  many  words 
and  sentences,  which  sounded  to  proceed  rather  of  some  evil- 
conceived  opinion  than  of  any  sound  judgment.  The  m/t/ior" 
(observe  the  singular)  "  of  this  work  had  also  put  in  this  treaty  a 
title  or  chapter  of  the  obedience  that  subjects  owe  unto  their 
magistrates."  Lethington  and  Wynram  "  gave  their  advice  to  leave 
it  out."^^  Knox  prints  this  chapter  (xxiv.)  While  acknowledging 
the  civil  rulers  as  of  divine  institution,  it  is  announced  to  be  their 
duty  to  put  down  the  old  Church,  "  suppressing  of  idolatry  and 
superstition."  To  resist  the  Supreme  Power  ("when  doing  that 
which  appertains  to  his  charge ")  is  to  resist  God's  ordinance.  It 
follows,  apparently,  that  to  resist  a  ruler  who  does  ^wt  put  down 
idolatry,  is  legitimate  enough.  The  consequence,  for  Mary  Stuart, 
is  obvious. -'' 

Randolph's  remark  on  this  important  point  is  perplexing.  By 
Knox's  account,  Wynram  was  one  of  the  makers  of  the  Con- 
fession ;  why,  then,  should  he  help  Lethington  to  amend  it  ?  ^^ 
Again,  the  chapter  on  the  Magistrate  still  stands  in  Knox's 
published  Confession.  Dr  Mitchell  suggested  that  the  draft  of  the 
chapter  may  have  contained  something  as  to  the  limits  of  obedience ; 
as,  practically,  it  still  does.  In  a  Genevan  formula  we  are  not  to 
obey  the  ruler  if  he  commands  what  God  forbids — that  is,  of 
course,  whatever  we  please  to  say  that  God  forbids.  "  God  is  to  be 
obeyed  rather  than  men."  In  practice  this  meant  that  the  preachers 
were  to  be  obeyed  rather  than  the  magistrate.  Now,  though  Dr 
Mitchell  does  not  remark  it,  this  theory  of  his  tallies  with  Ran- 
dolph's words  as  to  the  peccant  chapter :  it  "  contained  little  less 
matter  in  few  words  than  hath  been  otherwise  written  more  at 
large."  -"-  Randolph  may  here  refer  to  one  of  the  Genevan  books. 
Knox,  of  course,  acted  later,  in  opposition  to  Mary,  on  the  Genevan 
maxim.     The  articles  on  Baptism  and  the  Sacrament,  as  Mr  Tytler 


CIRCULAR   REASONING.  TJ 

remarks,  closely  follow  the  Articles  of  Edward  VI.  The  general 
complexion,  as  Dr  Mitchell  shows,  is  of  the  purest  Geneva.  Into 
the  theology  we  cannot  enter  deeply.  "We  utterly  abhor  the 
blasphemy  of  those  that  affirm  that  men  who  live  according  to 
equity  and  justice  shall  be  saved,  what  religion  so  ever  they  have 
professed,"  is  one  sweeping  statement.  The  old  Church  is  "  that 
horrible  harlot,   the  Kirk  Malignant." 

As  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  the  article  is  a  reasoning 
in  a  circle.  "We  dare  not  receive  and  admit  any  interpretation 
which  directly  repugneth  to  any  principal  point  of  our  faith,"  for 
our  faith  is  based  on  our  own  interpretation  of  the  Scripture. 
Interpretation  "  appertaineth  to  the  Spirit  of  God,"  who,  we  pre- 
sume, has  officially  guided  Knox  and  Calvin  and  other  framers 
of  our  faith, — a  fact  which,  of  course,  needed  to  be  proved. 
On  this  point  hinged  the  later  troubles  of  James  VI.  with  the 
preachers,  who  claimed  to  interpret  by  direct  inspiration.  As 
to  ceremonies ;  such  as  men  have  devised  "  are  but  temporal,  so 
may  and  ought  they  to  be  changed,  when  they  rather  foster  super- 
stition than  that  they  edify  the  Kirk  using  the  same."  On  the 
article  as  to  the  Holy  Sacrament  it  were  unbecoming  to  enter,  but 
it  certainly  bears  the  impress  of  a  lofty  mysticism.  The  sacrament 
is  no  mere  commemoration.  "  The  bread  which  we  break  is  the 
communion  of  Christ's  body,  and  the  cup  which  we  bless  is  the 
communion  of  his  blood."  The  Confession,  according  to  the 
learned  Dr  Mitchell  of  St  Andrews,  an  admirable  and  amiable 
example  of  the  Kirk  of  the  last  generation,  displays  "a  liberal  and 
manly,  yet  reverent  and  cautious  spirit."  The  liberalism,  to  a 
liberal  age,  seems  dubious  ;  and,  if  the  Scots  are  really  a  logical 
people,  they  may  think  the  logic  of  chapter  xviii.  rather  womanly 
than  "  manly."  The  authors,  indeed,  protested  that  if  any  man 
noted  anything  "  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,"  they  were  ready  to 
offer  him  "  satisfaction  fra  the  mouth  of  God,  that  is,  from  His 
Holy  Scriptures,"  or  else  emendation.  But  the  Parliament 
swallowed  the  whole  Confession  —  only  some  five  laymen  and 
three  bishops  dissenting.  With  an  irony  too  fine  for  the  oc- 
casion, which  Lethington  reported,  and  no  doubt  appreciated,  the 
prelates  of  St  Andrews,  Dunkeld,  and  Dunblane,  with  two  peers, 
said  that  they  "were  not  ready  to  speak  their  judgment,  for  that 
they  were  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  book."  ^^  Indeed,  if 
Hamilton,  still  an  "idolater,"  had  read  the  book  to  the  end,  he 


jS  PERSECUTING  ACTS. 

would  have  learned  that  such  as  he  were  to  be  "  tormented  for 
ever,  as  well  in  their  bodies  as  in  their  souls."  But  perhaps  he 
had  not  reached  this  appalling  passage.  According  to  Knox,  who 
varies  from  Randolph,  among  laymen  only  Atholl,  Somerville,  and 
Borthwick  dissented  from  the  expeditious  compendium  of  the 
counsels  of  Eternity.  They  "  produced  no  better  reason  but 
'  we  will  believe  as  our  fathers  believed ' " :  not  a  bad  reason  for 
laymen.  "  The  bishops,  papistical  we  mean,  spoke  nothing."  Does 
this  imply  that  there  were  other  than  papistical  bishops,  or  are 
converted  bishops  the  subject? 

The  attitude  of  the  prelates  and  priors  was  imbecile.  If  the 
Convention  was  legal,  they  should  have  attended  in  force  and  voted. 
If  it  was  illegal,  they  should  have  protested  and  withdrawn.  It  is 
said  that  Chatelherault  menaced  his  brother,  the  Archbishop,  with 
death  if  he  spoke  out.  The  tale  is  improbable.  Nobody  could  be 
afraid  of  Chatelherault,  and  Randolph  represents  the  brothers  as  on 
the  most  convivial  of  terms. 

On  August  24  three  Acts  were  passed.  One  abolished  the  Pope's 
authority,  and  all  jurisdiction  by  Catholic  prelates  ;  another  repealed 
the  old  statutes  in  favour  of  the  old  Church  ;  the  third  denounced 
against  celebrants  or  attendants  of  the  mass,  for  the  first  offence, 
confiscation  and  corporal  punishment ;  for  the  second,  exile  ;  for 
the  third — death.  All  magistrates,  in  town  or  country,  were  to  be 
inquisitors  of  this  wicked  heresy.^*  The  tables  were  turned.  Per- 
secution was  nominally  direr  than  it  had  commonly  been  in  the 
days  of  the  Regent.  But  in  practice  things  moved  otherwise.  The 
Catholic  rites  were  but  rarely  practised,  and  then  secretly,  as  a 
rule.  The  preachers,  Lesley  says,  urged  the  enforcement  of  the 
penal  statutes  later ;  but  "  the  humanity  of  the  nobles  must  not  be 
passed  over  in  silence,  for  at  this  time  few  Catholics  were  banished, 
fewer  were  imprisoned,  none  was  executed."  ^^  Secular  sense  and 
mercy  resisted  the  furious  theocrats.  From  at  least  one  contem- 
porary monarch  Knox  and  his  faction  might  have  learned  Christian 
justice  and  mercy.  That  monarch  was  the  Sultan.  In  a  paper  of 
foreign  intelligence  of  November  1561  we  read  "the  Grand  Turk 
commanded  "  a  Christian  prisoner  "  to  be  let  alone,  not  wishing  to 
bring  any  from  his  religion  by  force."  "^ 

Apparently  more  Acts  were  passed  in  August  1560  than  are  set 
down.  Bishop  Keith,  who  died  in  1756,  a  prelate  of  the  suffering 
Church  Episcopal  in  Scotland  in  Hanoverian  days,  was  naturally  a 


THE   OLD   CLERGY.  79 

Jacobite.  From  another  Jacobite,  Father  Thomas  Innes,  of  the 
Scots  College  in  Paris,  he  received  transcripts  of  certain  documents 
of  this  period.  They  were  preserved  by  James  Beaton,  Archbishop 
of  Glasgow,  who  left  Scotland  with  the  French  forces  in  July,  and, 
later,  was  Ambassador  at  Paris  for  Mary  and  James  VI.  An  article 
of  the  Arrangement  of  July  6  (xiii.)  had  ordered  that  the  complaints 
of  injured  ecclesiastics  were  to  be  heard  by  Parliament,  and  that 
none  should  disturb  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  property.  Now, 
from  a  paper  of  Beaton's  it  appears  that  the  churchmen  "  gave  in 
their  bills  "  for  redress,  but  did  not  appear  to  defend  and  urge  their 
cases.  Meanwhile  the  leases  let  off  collusively  by  the  Archbishop  of 
St  Andrews,  the  Bishops  of  Dunkeld  and  Dunblane,  the  Priors  of 
Whithern  and  Pluscarden,  and  the  Abbot  of  Crossraguel  were  to  be 
nullified,  with  all  such  leases  granted  since  March  6,  1 558.2*^  As 
to  clerical  property,  we  have  other  evidence.  Archbishop  Hamilton, 
writing  on  August  18  to  Beaton  in  Paris,  says,  "All  the  bills  they 
keep  them  as  yet,  and  no  man's  livings  or  houses  restored,  and 
yours  and  mine  in  special.  I  cannot  say  what  they  will  do  after 
this."  He  adds,  "  All  their  new  preachers  persuade  openly  the 
nobility,  in  the  pulpit,  to  .  .  .  slay  all  kirkmen  that  will  not  concur 
and  take  their  opinion."  They  especially  urge  Chatelherault  to 
slay  his  brother  or  imprison  him  for  life.  In  the  same  spirit  did 
Goodman,  an  English  preacher  in  Scotland,  urge  Cecil  "  not  to 
suffer  the  bloody  bishops  in  England  to  live."  ^^  Fortunately  the 
State  was  not  utterly  in  the  hands  of  the  preachers. 

As  to  the  non-appearance  of  the  Scottish  bishops  to  urge  before 
Parliament  their  claims  to  their  property,  on  August  28  the  Arch- 
bishop's factor,  Archibald,  wrote  to  say  that,  on  the  last  day  of  the 
Parliament,  the  Lords  of  the  Articles  called  on  the  bishops,  who 
had  all  gone  away  "  because  they  would  not  subscribe  with  the 
Lords  of  the  Articles,  and  therefore  they  were  called  because  of 
their  departure."  Keith  remarks  that  Knox  and  Buchanan  leave 
this  vague  because  they  had  not  the  skill  "  to  varnish  over  this 
dirty  job  with  any  appearance  of  equity."  ^^  Francis  II.  regarded 
the  "  dirty  job  "  as  another  infringement  of  the  compact  of  July  6. 

Here  we  may  approach  the  famous  Book  of  Discipline,  though  it 
does  not  seem  yet  to  have  been  presented  to  the  Estates.  This 
book,  drawn  up  by  Knox  and  other  preachers,  must  have  been 
finished  by  August  25,  1560,  when  Randolph  says  that  it  was  being 
translated   for  Calvin,  Beza,  BuUinger,  and  others   in   Geneva  and 


80  "KNOX'S   LITURGY." 

Zurich.  Randolph  saw  that  the  authors  would  not  accept  the 
Anglican  prayer-book,  which  had  for  a  while  been  used  in  Scottish 
churches,  though  they  did  not  refuse  to  consult  the  English  doctors.^*' 
Randolph's  opinion  was  correct.  We  are  now  to  consider  the  new 
model  of  the  Church,  or  Kirk,  in  Scotland.  The  nature  of  the  Kirk 
is  but  little  understood  in  England,  yet  an  organisation  which  still 
endures,  whether  in  the  Established  or  the  other  Churches,  successors 
of  that  of  Knox,  deserves  attention.  We  have  seen  that  for  a  while 
the  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.  was  used,  possibly  with  modifica- 
tions, in  Scotland.  But  Knox's  revised  opinion  of  that  work  is 
expressed  in  a  letter  of  April  6,  1559,  to  Mrs  Locke.  He  says  that 
he  will  never  counsel  any  man  to  use  the  English  Prayer-Book.  It 
is  vitiated  by  "  diabolical  inventions,"  such  as  crossing  at  baptism, 
kneeling  at  the  communion,  "  mummelling,"  or  singing  the  Litany, 
and  a  relative  neglect  of  preaching.  Mr  Parson  patters  his  "  con- 
strained prayers,"  and  Mr  Vicar,  "  with  his  wicked  companions," 
is  a  "mass-monger."^^  In  place  of  the  prayer-book,  the  Book  of 
Discipline  of  1560-61  preferred  what  is  often  called  'The  Book 
of  Common  Order,'  which  was  used  by  Knox's  congregation  at 
Geneva,  was  based,  apparently,  on  the  '  Liturgia  Sacra '  of  Pollanus 
(itself  founded  on  Calvin's  service),  and  was  accepted  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  1564.^^  The  Order  lasted  till  1637,  when 
the  effort  was  made  to  introduce  Laud's  Liturgy. 

As  to  what  has  been  called  "  Knox's  Liturgy,"  the  Book  of 
Common  Order,  it  is  confessedly  not  a  set  of  "  constrained 
prayers "  to  be  used  without  deviation,  but  merely  a  model  or 
guide.  The  minister  may  repeat  the  prayers,  but  he  may  vary  at 
will,  saying  something  "like  in  effect."  Before  the  sermon  he 
"  prayeth  for  the  assistance  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  same  shall 
move  his  heart."  ^^  The  doctrine  appears  to  have  been  that  the 
minister  was  directly  inspired.  We  read  of  ministers  with  "  a  great 
gale  on  them,"  like  the  disciples  at  Pentecost.  The  writer  is  in- 
formed, by  a  modern  Cameronian,  that  he  has  been  present  when  an 
aged  Cameronian  preacher  seemed  to  be  under  this  "gale," — in  the 
psychological  phrase  his  was  "  automatic  speaking." 

If  I  correctly  understand  Knox's  doctrine,  the  enormous  in- 
fluence in  politics  which  he  claimed  for  the  preachers  was  based 
on  their  direct  inspiration  by  the  Spirit.  A  Scottish  service 
then  proceeded  thus :  First,  the  minister  read  aloud  one  of  two 
Confessions,  or  spoke  words   "  like   in  effect."     No  directions  are 


"KNOX'S   LITURGY."  8 1 

given  as  to  the  posture  of  the  people,  but  probably  they  stood 
up  at  prayer.  The  Confessions  are  backed  by  a  long  array  of 
marginal  texts,  and  the  first  refers  to  the  "shame"  of  "our 
miserable  country  of  England,"  for  it  was  used  at  Geneva  by  an 
English  congregation.  A  psalm  is  then  sung,  "  in  a  plain  tune  " ; 
then  the  minister  prays  as  the  Spirit  moves  him ;  then  follows  the 
sermon,  usually  political  or  doctrinal,  and  of  great  length.  Then 
followed,  with  such  variations  as  the  minister  preferred,  a  prayer 
for  "the  whole  estate  of  Christ's  Church,"  directed  against  "the 
furious  uproar  of  that  Romish  idol,"  but  including  a  petition  "for 
such  as  yet  be  ignorant."  Next  came  the  Lord's  Prayer,  then  the 
Creed,  then  a  psalm,  and  last,  one  of  two  benedictions.  But  "  it  is 
not  necessary  for  the  minister  daily  to  repeat  all  these  things,  but, 
beginning  with  some  matter  of  confession,  to  proceed  to  the  sermon  " 
(always  the  main  business),  "  which  ended,  he  either  useth  the  prayer 
for  all  estates  before  mentioned,  or  else  prayeth  as  the  Spirit  of  God 
shall  move  his  heart."  As  a  matter  of  practice,  the  Creed  and  the 
Lord*s  Prayer  came  to  be  omitted.  Wodrow  (about  17 14)  has  a 
touching  story  of  a  very  old  minister,  who  astonished  his  congrega- 
tion by  using  the  Lord's  Prayer.  He  explained  that,  for  once,  he 
wished  to  do  what  all  Christians  were  doing. 

There  is  a  form  for  baptism,  and  for  the  communion,  where  the 
minister  may  use  words  "  like  in  effect."  As  a  rule,  long  and  many 
sermons  preceded  the  communion.  In  burial  there  are  "  no  cere- 
monies," but  the  minister  goes,  after  the  interment,  to  the  church, 
"if  it  be  not  far  off,"  and  preaches  on  death  and  the  resurrection. 
Such  was  "  Knox's  Liturgy."  It  is  intended  as  a  mere  guide,  and 
there  is  intentional  licence  for  variation.  "  Free  prayer  "  came  to  be 
preferred.  ■  Hence  James  VI.,  on  his  accession  to  the  EngUsh  throne, 
could  say  that  "  it  was  a  shame  to  all  religion  to  have  the  majesty  of 
God  so  barbarously  spoken  unto,  sometimes  so  seditiously  that  their 
prayers  were  plain  libels,  girding  at  sovereignty  and  authority ;  or  lies, 
being  stuffed  with  all  the  false  reports  in  the  kingdom."  The  prayers, 
in  fact,  were  political  discourses,  chiefly  against  James.^*  The  prayers, 
as  many  of  us  know,  have  become  not  extemporary,  but,  in  great 
part,  a  collection  of  formulae,  derived  from  oral  tradition.  When 
extemporary,  they  are  occasionally  "  barbarous,"  as  when  a  proba- 
tioner said,  "  O  Lord,  keep  one  eye  on  the  minister  of  this  con- 
gregation," whereat  broad  smiles  beaconed  from  the  minister's  pew. 

Such  were,  and  such  became,  the  services  of  "  the  Trew  Kirk." 

VOL.    II.  F 


82  PREACHERS,    HOW    APPOINTED. 

They  were  constructed  so  as  to  give  the  Spirit  of  God  free  play,  and 
the  bare  burials  were  arranged  on  purpose  to  check  the  superstitious 
opinion  that  the  departed  soul  might  receive  any  benefit.  As  for 
the  organisation  of  the  Kirk,  it  was  based  on  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
which,  again,  rested  on  the  Book  of  Common  Order.  All  who 
preach  or  minister  the  Sacraments  must  first  be  "  orderly  called." 
Knox's  own  call,  in  St  Andrews  Castle,  has  been  described.  The 
processes  were  election,  examination,  and  admission.  "  It  apper- 
taineth  to  the  people,  and  to  every  several  congregation,  to  elect 
their  minister,"  though,  as  we  shall  see,  a  different  theory  was  later 
put  forward.  If  this  be  neglected  for  forty  days,  the  superintendent's 
church  presents  a  man.  Examination  was  conducted  in  one  of  the 
chief  towns,  "  before  men  of  soundest  judgment,  .  .  .  and  before 
the  congregation."  The  candidate  had  to  interpret  an  appointed 
passage  of  the  Bible.  He  was  then  examined  in  the  chief  points  at 
issue  with  the  enemies  of  Christian  religion,  such  as  Rome,  Ana- 
baptists, and  Arians.  He  then  confessed  his  faith  "  in  diverse  public 
sermons."  If  the  Kirk  presented  one  candidate  and  the  people 
another,  the  man  of  the  people's  choice,  if  learned  enough,  was 
preferred.  No  man  was  to  be  violently  "  intruded."  The  morals 
of  a  candidate  were  carefully  examined,  in  his  own  district.  No 
ceremony  was  used  on  admission.  The  apostles,  indeed,  practised 
"  the  laying  on  of  hands,  yet,  seeing  the  miracle  is  ceased,  the  using 
of  the  ceremony  we  judge  not  necessary."  Not  that  miracles  had 
really  ceased  ;  the  Spirit  still  moved  men,  but  did  not  necessarily 
move,  or  inspire,  or  consecrate  them,  as  a  result  of  human  im- 
position of  hands.  In  no  long  time  the  "imposition  of  hands" 
became  the  rule.  In  addition  to  ministers,  there  were  readers, 
in  cases  where  no  qualified  minister  could  be  found. 

Gouda,  the  Papal  Nuncio,  says,  "  The  ministers  are  either 
apostate  monks  or  laymen  of  low  rank,  and  are  quite  unlearned, 
being  cobblers,  shoemakers,  tanners,  or  the  like."  Yet  he  admits 
that  the  few  Catholic  preachers  "seldom  venture  to  attack  con- 
troverted points,  being  indeed  unequal  to  the  task  of  handling 
them  with  effect."  ^5  The  fifth  head  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
introduces  us  to  a  third  order,  that  of  superintendents.  They 
were  not  bishops,  and  were  a  purely  provisional  rank  in  the  Kirk. 
"  Differences  between  preachers "  (the  superintendents  receiving 
higher  stipends)  were  only  made  "  for  this  time."  ^^  Ten  or 
twelve  men  were  appointed  to  each  of  the  provinces,  to  journey 


SOCIAL   AND    EDUCATIONAL    REFORMS  83 

throughout  it,  preaching  as  they  went,  seeing  to  the  sacraments  and 
church  discipHne,  presiding  at  meetings  of  the  provincial  synod,  and 
at  examinations  of  ministers  and  readers. ^^  There  was  no  consecra- 
tion of  the  superintendent  by  other  superintendents.  In  fact,  the 
superintendent,  for  various  reasons,  was  nothing  less  than  a  bishop. 
There  were  to  be,  for  these  and  other  officers  of  the  Kirk,  due 
stipends,  with  pensions,  education,  and  dowries  for  widows,  sons, 
and  daughters.  The  superintendent,  having  expensive  duties,  was  to 
have  a  higher  salary.  Provision  for  the  poor  and  for  education  was 
insisted  upon.  "Fearful  and  horrible  it  is  that  the  poor  .  .  .  are 
universally  so  contemned  and  despised."  This  had  not  been  so 
in  the  better  days  of  the  Church.  "  In  times  past,"  says  Latimer, 
speaking  of  his  youth,  before  the  Reformation,  "  men  were  full  of 
pity  and  compassion,  but  now  there  is  no  pity.  .  .  .  When  any  man 
died,  they  would  bequeath  great  sums  of  money  towards  the  relief  of 
the  poor.  .  .  .  Charity  is  waxen  cold  ;  none  helpeth  the  scholar,  nor 
yet  the  poor ;  now  that  the  knowledge  of  God's  Word  is  brought  to 
light,  .  .  .  now  almost  no  man  helpeth  to  maintain  them."  ^^  The 
Romish  doctrines  of  Purgatory  and  of  Works  had  been  overthrown, 
and  in  Latimer's  remarks  we  see  the  temporary  results. 

As  for  schools,  each  church  ought  to  have  a  schoolmaster,  capable 
of  teaching  Latin  and  grammar  at  least.  All  children  must  be 
educated,  rich  and  poor,  the  poor  being  supported  "on  the  charge 
of  the  Church."  Those  adapted  for  the  higher  education  (includ- 
ing Greek)  must  persevere  therein  till  the  age  of  twenty-four. 
Into  the  regulations  for  the  universities  space  does  not  permit  us 
to  enter  ;  for  some  years  the  universities  suffered  from  the  con- 
fusions of  the  age. 

The  sixth  head  of  the  book  is  an  appeal  to  the  Lords  "that 
ye  have  respect  to  your  poor  brethren,  the  labourers  of  the 
ground,  who,  by  these  cruel  beasts,  the  Papists,  have  been 
so  oppressed."  They  should  only  pay  "  reasonable  teinds," 
"  that  they  may  feel  some  benefit  of  Christ  Jesus,  now  preached 
unto  them.  \Y\t\\  the  grief  of  our  hearts  we  hear  that  some  gentle- 
men are  now  as  cruel  to  their  tenants  as  ever  were  the  Papists  " ;  the 
tyranny  is  now  that  of  "  the  lord  or  laird."  Gentlemen  must  live 
"on  their  just  rents."  The  "teinds"  are  inherited  from  "thieves 
and  murderers."  The  whole  revenue  of  all  cathedral  churches  should 
be  given  to  the  universities  and  superintendents.  The  Kirk  and  the 
poor  were  to  be  the  heirs  of  the  Church.    This  could  not  be  carried. 


84  FAILURE   OF   THESE   HOPES   (1561). 

In  January  1561  a  number  of  nobles  signed  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
but  "others,  in  their  mockage," — nameh',  Lethington, — "termed  it 
'devout  imaginations.'  "^^  "There  was  none  within  the  reahn  more 
unmerciful  to  the  poor  ministers  than  were  they  which  had  greatest 
rents  off  the  churches."  Even  the  signers  of  the  book  guarded 
"vested  interests,"  only  providing  that  "the  bishops,  abbots,  priors, 
and  other  prelates  and  beneficed  men  who  have  adjoined  themselves 
to  us,  keep  the  revenues  of  their  benefices  during  their  lifetime,  they 
sustaining  the  ministry  and  ministers."  "  This  promise  was  eluded 
from  time  to  time."  ^'^ 

The  chapter  on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline  was  even  politically 
important.  The  Kirk  corrected  the  faults  not  reached  by  civil 
justice,  but  she  also,  in  the  last  result,  corrected  them  by  secular 
means.  The  State  should  punish  adultery  by  death  :  the  Kirk 
kept  her  eye,  very  sedulously,  on  simple  fornication.  An  offender 
was  first  spied  out,  and  admonished  privately,  apparently  by  the 
elders  :  if  impenitent,  the  minister  admonished  him  :  if  still  recalci- 
trant, he  was,  after  sufficient  delays  and  exhortations,  excommuni- 
cated— that  is,  universally  boycotted,  perhaps  for  profane  swearing 
or  drunkenness.  All  Estates  are  subject  to  this  discipline ;  so 
that  the  Kirk  could  cut  off  from  all  human  intercourse,  except  that 
of  the  family,  the  queen  if  she  swore,  or  the  Chancellor  if  he  broke 
the  Seventh  Commandment.'^^  To  carry  her  ideas  into  action,  the 
Kirk  needed  a  police.  This  she  found  in  the  elders,  who  had  to 
observe  the  morals  even  of  the  ministers.  Finance  was  the  province 
of  the  deacons.  "  Prophesying  " — that  is,  discussion  of  the  Scrip- 
tures— was  to  be  done  weekly  in  towns.  The  organisation  of 
Church  government  was  not  yet  complete.  The  General  Assembly 
came  to  have  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Kirk  :  each  province  had 
its  synod,  and  the  kirk-session  served  for  "  one  or  more  neighbour- 
ing congregations."  The  germ  of  the  presbytery  was  in  the  weekly 
meetings  of  ministers  and  elders  for  "  exercise,"  or  "  prophesying." 
The  whole  scheme  was  more  completely  evolved  later,  but  the 
First  Book  of  Discipline  contains  the  seeds  of  the  organisation. 
Naturally  it  included  the  usual  denunciations  of  idolatry.  It  in- 
volved a  system  of  espionnage,  and  interference  with  private  life, 
which  (if  we  may  judge  from  the  cases  recorded  in  kirk-session 
reports)  produced  little  or  no  effect  on  sexual  morality,  always  the 
main  subject  (with  witchcraft  and  Sabbath-breaking)  of  inquisition. 

The  Reformation,  now  organised,  gave  the  Scots  a  theology  in 


THE   NEW   ETHICS   AND   THEOLOGY.  85 

which  the  Brethren  could  believe.  Its  austere  ethics,  more  than 
its  "discipline,"  fostered  righteousness  of  life.  Its  clergy,  far  unlike 
the  old  churchmen,  set  admirable  examples  of  private  conduct.  In 
the  worst  ages  the  Kirk  cherished  education.  But  the  spirit  of 
gentleness,  the  detestation  of  cruel  punishments,  and  the  humaner 
virtues  did  not  rapidly  arise  under  the  armed  and  iron  sway  of  the 
Kirk.  Her  ministers  arrogated  to  themselves  a  kind  of  infallibility 
in  matters  poHtical.  No  longer  members  of  a  miraculous  caste, 
some  of  them  prophesied,  and  were  credited  with  the  power  of 
healing  diseases  and  other  supernormal  gifts.  A  long  struggle 
between  Kirk  and  State,  king  and  preacher,  lay  before  Scotland. 

After  sketching  the  organisation  of  the  new  Kirk,  we  may  glance 
at  a  more  speculative  theme.  What  was  the  genesis,  what  the 
nature,  of  the  new  theology  and  religion  of  Scotland  ?  These 
have  exercised  strange  powers  of  attraction  and  repulsion  among 
people  of  later  times.  Among  believing  men,  Wesley  and  Samuel 
Johnson  were  at  one  in  regarding  Knox  and  Knox's  creed  with 
extreme  aversion.  On  the  other  hand,  men  like  Mr  Froude  and 
Mr  Carlyle,  whose  Calvinism  was  purely  platonic,  are  constant  in 
praise  of  the  Reformer  and  his  doctrine.  Why  did  Scotland  choose 
Calvinism,  and  so  dig  a  new  and  scarcely  passable  gulf  between 
herself  and  England,  with  which  the  Protestants  desired  union  ? 
It  is  an  easy,  and  not  a  wholly  untrue,  reply  that  Knox  had  lived 
in  Geneva,  and  brought  Genevan  ideas  home.  Another  opinion 
is  that  Calvinism  had  a  kind  of  elective  affinity  for  the  Scottish 
national  genius.  "  In  the  theology  of  the  Calvinistic  system  the 
Scottish  intellect  found  scope  for  that  dialectic  which  has  always 
been  its  natural  function."  So  writes  Knox's  latest  biographer.*^ 
But  was  "  abstract  dialectic  "  the  "natural  function  "  of  the  Scottish 
intellect  ?  Since  very  early  ages  of  scholasticism,  it  is  not  easy  to 
remember  the  names  of  any  Scots  who  were  abstract  thinkers. 
Poets  they  had,  diplomatists,  scholars,  soldiers,  and  lawyers.  But 
au  fond  the  Scottish  mind  is  practical.  The  Scottish  speculations 
on  man's  destiny,  and  relations  to  the  Supreme  Being,  soon  came 
to  be  expressed,  with  grotesque  precision,  in  the  formula  of  the 
Scottish  law  of  contract.  That  is  the  very  reverse  of  abstract 
dialectic. 

After  Wishart's  day,  and  after  the  day  of  the  English  Prayer- 
Book  of  Edward  VI.,  the  Scottish  preference  for  the  Calvinistic 
system    was    caused    by    two    motives.       First,    of    all    eligible 


86  SCOTTISH   ECONOMY   IN    THOUGHT. 

systems  Calvinism  was  most  remote  from  Rome.  Secondly, 
Calvinism  was  the  cheapest  system,  entailing  no  expense  on  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  deans,  canons,  cathedrals,  and  other  luxuries. 
For  these  the  new  lay  holders  of  Church  lands  were  determined 
not  to  pay :  they  could  scarcely  be  compelled  to  afford  the 
starveling  stipends  of  the  ministers.  The  influence  of  Knox's 
Genevan  associations  must  also  be  admitted.  If  Calvinism  "  met 
the  highest  needs  of  the  national  mind,"  it  also  harmonised  with  the 
national  instinct  of  "  hauding  a  gude  grip  of  the  gear,"  and  with  the 
desire  of  the  godly  to  escape  as  far  from  everything  Roman  as 
possible.  Despite  the  supposed  national  genius  for  abstract  thought, 
it  is  plain,  as  Mr  Hume  Brown  not  very  consistently,  but  very 
frankly,  enables  us  to  observe,  that  Calvinism  meant  a  strenuous 
economy  in  thinking.  "  When  Knox  had  extracted  his  theological 
system  from  the  Bible  "  (which  he  did  "  by  the  ingenious  combina- 
tion of  texts  divorced  from  their  natural  and  historical  meaning "), 
"  and  held  it  in  his  hand  embodied  in  an  elaborate  Confession 
of  Faith,  his  labour  as  a  thinking  agent  was  at  an  end."  "  To  add 
to  this  compendium  or  take  from  it  was  alike  an  impiety  which 
deserved  due  penalties  in  this  world,  and  would  certainly  ensure 
them  in  the  next."  Yet  Knox's  system  "  to  a  large  extent  would 
have  been  unrecognisable  by  any  writer  either  in  the  Old  or  New 
Testament."  *^ 

Perhaps  the  dangers  of  varying  from  Knox's  "  compendium " 
are  here  exaggerated.  Of  course  if  the  critic  is  right,  if  every- 
thing safely  thinkable  had  been  thought  out  by  Knox  and  could 
be  read  in  his  book,  a  people  with  a  genius  for  abstract  dialectic 
would  have  rejected  the  book,  or  would  have  intellectually  starved. 
Their  thinking  was  presented  to  them  ready-made,  with  the  im- 
print ne  varietur.  Practically,  some  people,  and  some  preachers, 
must  think.  We  know  certainly  that  the  later  children  of  "the 
second  Reformation,"  of  the  Covenant,  had  their  speculative 
perplexities.  The  Memoirs  of  HaUiburton,  a  famous  St  Andrews 
preacher  of  the  early  eighteenth  century,  show,  in  a  very  touching 
style,  how  his  youth  was  a  long  battle  with  doubt.  Evidence  even 
as  to  the  existence  of  a  Deity  was  to  him,  as  he  says  in  oddly 
modern  phrase,  "  a  felt  want."  He  fell  back  on  subjective  experi- 
ences. Ideas  arose  from  his  sub-consciousness  which  he  could 
only  explain  as  suggestions  of  the  devil.  Grant  a  devil,  and  there 
is  no  difficulty  in  granting  the  existence  of  a  Deity.     We  know  from 


KNOX   UNCHRISTIAN.  87 

the  memoirs  of  poor  uneducated  Presbyterians  that  every  modern 
problem  as  to  Revelation  was  famihar  to  their  minds.  They  saw 
that  there  were  many  creeds  :  what  evidence  existed  to  prove  that 
theirs  was  the  genuine  belief?  They  had  to  fight  for  the  life  of 
their  souls,  like  men  of  later  days.  The  system  of  Knox  obviously 
reposes  on  a  circular  argument.  The  Bible  is  absolutely  inspired, 
though  Knox  thought  that  the  apostles  had  moments  of  defective 
inspiration  when  their  words  did  not  harmonise  with  his  con- 
clusions. Apparently  he,  John  Knox,  was  always  inspired.  But 
he  could  not  bring  all  the  w6rld  into  this  belief.  When  the 
question  arose  as  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  Knox  had 
got  rid  of  the  infallible  Church,  and  the  only  substitute  was  the 
infallibility  of  popularly  elected  preachers,  or  of  preachers  elected 
by  the  extant  preachers  of  the  day.  On  this  point  he  did  not 
like  to  be  catechised.  There  was  his  "  compendium  "  ;  it  must  be 
swallowed,  like  the  little  book  in  the  Apocalypse.  Thus  Knox's 
system  really  owed  its  charm  to  its  thriftiness  of  thought  and 
money, — its  concrete,   practical  character. 

While  theology  stood  thus,  the  religion,  for  its  ethics,  went  back 
to  early  Christian  morality,  without  the  "  sweet  reasonableness "  of 
the  founder  of  the  creed.  Compare  Knox  in  his  conversations  with 
Mary,  and  St  Paul  in  his  dialogues  with  Festus  and  Felix,  or  in  his 
speech  at  Athens.  The  morality  of  the  Kirk  was  austere  and  primi- 
tive where  sexual  sins  were  concerned.  It  was  not  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Master's  words  to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  or  to  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  or  to  her  out  of  whom  seven  devils  were  cast.  Even  in 
denouncing  avarice  and  oppression,  Knox  speaks  more  like  Amos 
than  with  the  persuasiveness  of  St  James  or  St  John.  The  per- 
secuting violence  of  Knox  is  confessedly  modelled  on  Samuel, 
Joshua,  and  Jehu, — on  these  strange  prophets  and  politicians  of  a 
law  given  "  for  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts."  "  For  Knox,  as 
for  Calvin  and  Luther,"  says  Mr  Hume  Brown,  "  Jesus  was  not  the 
emasculated  figure  of  certain  types  of  Christianity,  but  as  much  '  a 
son  of  thunder '  as  any  of  the  ancient  prophets."  **  That  was  Knox's 
fatal  error.  It  is  not  "an  emasculated  figure"  who  tells  the  "sons 
of  thunder  "  that  they  know  not  what  spirit  they  are  of.  Knox  was 
for  punishing  differences  in  theological  opinion  with  death.  "  But 
I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do 
good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despiteiuUy 
use  you,  and  persecute  you  ;  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your 


88  MISERY   OF   THE   CATHOLICS. 

Father  which  is  in  heaven."  Not  to  this  text  did  Knox  give  ear, 
but  to  such  words  as,  "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how 
can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell  ? "  Knox's  gospel  had  its 
admirable  elements,  in  its  insistence  on  personal  purity  in  private 
life,  and  on  duty  towards  the  poor.  These  precepts  were  in  noble 
and  salutary  contrast  with  the  practice  of  most  churchmen  during 
the  last  four  or  five  generations.  Again,  the  new  evangel  insisted 
on  veracity,  "at  least  as  far  as  we  are  able."  Men  were  not  to 
profess  belief  where  they  disbelieved,  but,  alas  !  Catholics  must  for- 
swear their  belief,  or  at  least  must  abstain  from  its  rites  ;  must  profess 
to  believe  what  they  did  not  believe.  The  whole  theory  of  the  duty 
of  destroying  idolaters  was  congenial  to  a  nation  of  long-cherished 
revenges,  violent  crimes,  and  deadly  feuds.  But  it  was  eminently 
unchristian,  as  was  that  "  spiritual "  hatred  which  betrayed  Knox 
into  scandalous  insinuations  ;  and  that  bullying  truculence  of  tone, 
which  was  rebuked  by  the  urbanity  of  Ninian  Winzet.  There  was, 
in  short,  a  great  deal  of  "  the  old  man  "  in  Knox's  character  and 
gospel.  This  was  natural,  and  pardonable  ;  but  that  his  gospel  and 
example  were  ideally  excellent,  and  an  unmixed  boon  to  his  country, 
few  of  his  countrymen,  who  know  Knox  and  his  Reformation  at  first 
hand,  are  Hkely  to  contend. 

How  did  the  Catholics  take  their  new  fortunes  ?  Unhappily  we 
know  very  little  on  the  subject.  The  country  must  have  seemed 
strangely  desolate  to  souls  of  the  old  faith.  The  familiar  shrines 
were  vacant  of  their  saints.  "  The  blessed  mutter  of  the  mass  "  was 
silent :  the  candles  were  extinguished,  the  vestments  were  cut  up  for 
doublets,  the  last  incense-smoke  had  rolled  away.  In  lonely  green 
cleughs  of  Ettrickdale  the  chapels  were  desecrated  ;  the  crosses  by 
the  wayside  had  perished  ;  the  Angelus  no  longer  called  to  prayer ; 
the  tombs  were  stripped  and  spoiled.  If  all  these  things  had  exer- 
cised their  ministry  in  stimulating,  and  consoling,  and  regulating  the 
religious  emotions  _;  if  the  extreme  rites  of  the  Church  had  fortified 
men  in  the  hour  of  death, — the  souls  that  desired  them  starved. 

How  much  misery  this  caused  we  know  not,  and  cannot  know. 
Religious  ardour  is  seldom  very  common  in  the  world,  and  perhaps 
the  majority  of  both  sexes  who  possessed  the  religious  temperament 
were  earnest  Protestants.  Of  the  fervent  Catholics,  lay  or  clerical, 
many  emigrated,  and  not  a  few  became  distinguished  in  foreign 
colleges.  The  populace  most  resented  the  abolition  of  ecclesi- 
astical holidays  :   that,  probably,  was  what  chiefly  galled.     Of  the 


THE   AGE   OF   RUIN.  89 

clergy,  most  abjured,  and  one  monk  of  seventy  seized  the  occasion 
to  marry.  The  other  priests  dressed  as  laymen  :  the  few  religious 
who  were  left  wandered  about  in  secular  costume.  "  A  large  number 
of  the  common  people  are  still  Catholics,  but  they  are  so  trampled 
in  the  dust  by  the  tyranny  of  their  opponents  that  they  can  only 
sigh  and  groan,  waiting  for  the  deliverance  of  Israel."  In  any 
court  of  law,  suitors  were  first  asked  "  if  they  were  Papists  ?  Should 
they  be,  they  can  get  very  little  attention,  if  any,  paid  to  their 
cause."  "The  monasteries  were  nearly  all  in  ruins,  some  com- 
pletely destroyed ;  churches,  altars,  sanctuaries,  are  overthrown  and 
profaned,  the  images  of  Christ  and  the  saints  broken  and  lying  in 
the  dust."  Official  accounts  present  us  with  the  same  picture.  In 
September  1563  the  Privy  Council  considered  the  case  of  the  Abbey 
Church  of  Dunfermline,  which  still  exists,  though  much  depraved  by 
"restoration,"  The  walls  were  "riven,"  there  w^as  no  glass  in  the 
windows ;  it  is  great  peril  and  danger  to  bide  within  the  kirk,  either 
in  time  of  prayers,  teaching,  or  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  The 
lay  holders  of  the  property,  Pitcairn  being  Commendator,  were 
ordered  to  keep  the  abbey  in  repair,  and  glaze  the  windows.  This 
kind  of  ruin  was  everywhere.^^  The  superintendents,  on  their 
rounds,  drove  out  Catholic  incumbents.  So,  two  years  later, 
Nicholas  de  Gouda,  S.J.,  wrote  to  the  General  of  the  Society  of 
Jesus.^*^  His  narrative  makes  it  clear  that  the  Catholics  had  neither 
cohesion  nor  leaders.  Some  nobles  secretly  practised  the  rites  of 
the  Church,  but  the  bishops  were,  as  a  rule,  timid  worldlings,  and 
the  few  Catholic  preachers  (with  rare  exceptions,  to  be  later  noted) 
had  scanty  knowledge  and  no  skill  in  controversy. 

One  exception  to  the  rule  has  been  mentioned,  and  we  must  not 
forget  another.  Historians  of  Scotland  say  little  or  nothing  about 
Ninian  Winzet,  a  Catholic  schoolmaster  expelled  from  his  school  at 
Linlithgow.  But  in  Winzet  we  find  a  man  of  courage  and  of 
courtesy,  who  dared  to  face  Knox  himself,  putting  questions  which 
the  Reformer  did  not  answer.  On  February  15,  1562  (to  anticipate 
the  course  of  political  events),  Winzet,  the  expelled  dominie,  asked 
Mary's  leave  to  propound  certain  articles  to  the  preachers.  Pre- 
sently, in  February,  Winzet  conveyed  to  Knox  a  tractate,  '  Is  John 
Knox  a  lawful  Minister?'  What  Winzet  says  must  be  translated, 
for  he  prided  himself  on  writing  Scots,  not  English  like  his  adver- 
sary. Lawful  ministers  are  (i)  those  called  by  God  only,  and  their 
call    is   vouched    for    "  by    power   of  the    Spirit,   or  by  miracles." 


go  NINIAN    WINZET   (1562). 

"  Where,"  asks  Winzet,  "  Mr  Knox,  are  your  miracles  wrought  by 
the  Spirit  ?  "  Knox  might  have  referred  to  his  prophecies,  like  that 
about  Mary  of  Guise.  He  is  so  fond  of  dwelling  on  his  successes  as 
a  prophet  that  probably  he  did  regard  them  as  proof  that  he  was 
called  by  God.  They  were  not  of  a  nature  to  satisfy  hostile  criticism. 
Next,  if  Knox  was  called  by  men,  "had  they  lawful  power  thereto, 
like  the  ministers  called  by  the  apostles?"  This  was  an  awkward 
question,  for  we  know  the  nature  of  Knox's  call.  Other  unpleasant 
questions  were  asked.^'''  On  March  3,  1562,  Winzet  complained 
that  Knox  had  not  noticed  him  "  in  writing  privately,"  as  he  desired, 
but  had  only  preached  on  the  subject.  He  directed  his  letter 
"Rarae  eruditionis  facundiaeque  viro,  Joanni  Knox" — "To  John 
Knox,  a  man  of  singular  learning  and  eloquence."  He  had  ended 
his  note,  "  Farewell  in  Christ,  and  endeavour  to  let  truth  prevail,  not 
the  individual  man."  Knox  probably  answered,  for  on  March  10 
Winzet  responded.  Knox  had  objected  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
called  by  God,  yet  wrought  no  miracles.  Winzet  replied  that  his 
prophecies  about  Christ  were  fulfilled.  Amos  was  another  example 
cited  by  Knox  in  support  of  his  own  call.  But  Winzet  replied  that 
Scripture  vouched  that  Amos  was  sent  by  God,  and  that  visible  signs 
were  shown  to  him  by  God.  Even  so,  Amos  did  not  assume  to 
hold  the  authority  of  High  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  "as  ye  do  as  present 
of  the  Primate  of  Scotland,  in  Edinburgh." 

On  March  12  Winzet  returned  to  the  charge.  He  wanted  a 
written  answer,  not  a  sermon.  Knox  has  renounced  his  orders, 
as  given  by  a  Popish  bishop.  Why  does  he  not,  by  parity  of 
reasoning,  renounce  his  baptism  ?  On  March  3 1  Winzet  addressed 
the  Edinburgh  magistrates.  The  occasion  he  states  himself.  On 
Easter  Monday  the  doors  of  Catholics  had  been  marked  with 
chalk  by  order  of  the  bailies,  probably  for  some  reason  of  religious 
police.  Next  day  the  doors  of  Calvinists  were  found  marked  in 
the  same  way.  These  occasions  of  disturbance  put  Winzet  on 
thinking  "how  happy  a  thing  it  were  if  every  man  might  live 
according  to  his  vocation  at  ane  tranquillity  in  godliness."  His 
thoughts  then  turned  to  his  profession,  and  he  marvelled  that, 
in  many  towns,  there  was  not  so  much  as  a  schoolhouse,  while, 
in  the  general  cry  for  reformation,  so  few  children  were  even 
taught  grammar.  Here  was  a  point  on  which  Knox  and  Winzet 
were  at  one.  Winzet  now  remembered  the  themes  for  Latin 
prose  which  in  his  happy  days  as  a  dominie  he  had  set  to  boys 


WINZET   NOT   ANSWERED,   BUT   EXILED.  91 

"more  able  to  learn  than  I  was  to  teach."  "Sedition,"  he  thought, 
would  have  been  a  capital  subject  for  his  pupils,  and  on  this,  to 
beguile  his  melancholy,  he  composed  an  essay.  This  manuscript 
was  copied,  and  handed  about  among  Catholics,  and  at  last  Winzet 
had  it  printed  (May  24,  1562).  Winzet's  appeal  to  the  magistrates, 
however,  was  earlier  than  the  printing  of  his  treatise,  being  of 
March  31.  He  reminded  the  bailies  how  Solon  denounced  all 
neutrals  in  civil  strife.  On  this  matter  of  the  Easter  hubbub  he 
must  not  be  neutral.  Therefore,  after  praying  for  "peace  among 
all  professing  our  Lord  Jesus,"  he  looked  into  the  history  of  the 
prohibited  Easter  festival.  He  found  St  Augustine  testifying  to  the 
antiquity  of  the  practice  even  in  his  own  day,  and  since  our  Saviour's 
day.  So  he  "  began  to  marvel  at  the  arrogant  temerity  of  your 
holy  prophet,  John  Knox,  who  commands  to  abolish  these  solemnities 
as  Popery" — that  is,  "idolatry."  Easter  rests  on  the  tradition  of 
the  Church.  Knox  denounces  it.  But  on  what  does  Sunday  rest? 
Merely  on  the  same  tradition.  Why,  then,  does  Knox  pick  and 
choose,  retaining  Sunday  and  abolishing  Easter  and  Christmas  ? 
The  magistrates  are  invited  to  induce  Knox  to  answer  these  argu- 
ments in  wriftng. 

For  all  reply  Knox  gives  only  "waste  wind,"  sermons.  The 
magistrates  did  not  induce  Knox  to  answer.  Winzet  therefore 
began  to  print  a  treatise  of  some  eighty-three  controversial  questions. 
The  magistrates  seized  the  book  before  it  was  printed,  imprisoned 
and  fined  John  Scott,  the  printer,  and  nearly  caught  Winzet, 
who  slipped  out  of  the  printer's  house  and  escaped.''®  Winzet 
published  his  book  at  Antwerp  in  October  1573.  It  remains 
unanswered  until  this  day.  The  author  denounces  the  secular 
abuses  of  the  Church  as  vigorously  as  Knox  himself.  The  treatment 
which  he  received,  the  refusal  or  indefinite  postponement  of  any 
reply,  except  "waste  wind,"  and  the  seizure  of  the  book,  and  per- 
secution of  the  printer,  are  highly  characteristic.  Presbyter,  as 
Milton  says,  was  but  priest  "  writ  large."  Catholic  books  were 
forbidden  to  enter  Scotland,  just  as  Lutheran  books  had  been 
prohibited.  In  1578  Winzet  became  Abbot  of  the  Scots  monastery 
at  Ratisbon.  There  Mr  Laing  found  his  monument,  in  his  canonical 
dress.  "  It  represents  a  placid,  round,  and  intelligent  countenance, 
such  as  we  might  imagine  of  a  person  who  had  for  years  enjoyed 
the  ease  and  retirement  of  a  monastic  life."^®  If  we  believe  a 
MS.    Memoir   by  the   son   of   Lethington,    Winzet  wrote    most    of 


92  KNOX'S   MEASURE   OF   SUCCESS. 

Bishop  Lesley's  '  History  of  Scotland.'  The  affair  of  the  brave, 
gentle,  usually  courteous,  and  pacific  schoolmaster  has  been  dwelt 
on  at  length,  because  it  is  hardly  noticed  by  Knox's  biographers. 
Even  Mr  Hume  Brown  gives  it  only  a  footnote  of  three  lines.^" 
Nowhere  do  we  find  clearer  information  as  to  that  interesting 
topic,  the  position  of  intelligent  and  learned  Catholics,  who  wished 
to  reform  the  Church  from  within,  and  without  "  the  mervellis  of 
weltering  of  Realmes  to  ungodly  seditioun  and  discorde."  In 
Winzet,  then,  we  find  one  sympathetic  figure,  and  truly  Christian 
man.  For  the  rest,  we  know  but  little  about  the  persecuted 
Catholics,  deserted  as  they  were  by  the  time-serving  bishops. 
Winzet  was  "shot  out  of"  his  ill-paid  office  and  "dear  home" 
because  he  would  not  conform.  The  bishops  did  conform 
enough  to  save  most  of  their  wealth.  For  the  rest,  we  are  left 
to  the  guidance  of  fancy. 

Scott,  in  '  The  Abbot,'  has  tried  to  imagine  the  condition  of  the 
Catholics  at  this  moment.  It  appears  that,  like  his  hero  Glendinning, 
Scotland  had  never  been  very  devoted  to  Rome,  and  readily  turned 
to  "  more  reasonable  views  of  religion."  There  was  no  Pilgrimage 
of  Grace.  There  was  as  yet  no  spirit  of  martyrdom  ;  and  there  were 
practically  no  martyrs.  Of  all  European  countries  touched  by  the 
Reformation,  Scotland  accepted  the  new  faith  at  least  expense  of 
bloodshed.  The  very  vices  and  weakness  of  the  Church  in  Scotland 
had  prepared  the  way  for  the  least  contested  of  religious  revolutions. 
Again,  the  thorough-going  Puritanism  of  the  Kirk  left  no  grounds  for 
internal  quarrels  over  surplices  and  altars,  vestments,  crucifixes,  and 
candles.  Had  not  James  VI.  succeeded  to  the  English  throne; 
had  not  he  and  his  son  tried  to  bring  in  the  English  or  a  similar 
prayer-book  and  the  Order  of  Bishops,  it  would  have  been  hard  for 
Scottish  theologians  to  find  anything  to  quarrel  about — except  so 
far  as  their  rights  to  dictate  on  secular  affairs  were  concerned,  for 
the  heresies  of  the  early  eighteenth  century  were  still  remote.  The 
success  of  the  moment  was  due  to  Knox,  above  all  men.  At  Perth, 
at  St  Andrews,  at  Stirling,  he  had  raised  the  temper  of  his  followers 
almost  to  his  own  level.  He  screwed  their  courage  to  the  sticking- 
point ;  he  insisted  on  extreme  measures ;  and  he  only  failed  when 
he  tried  to  carry  out  his  social  reforms,  to  persecute  Catholics  to 
the  death,  and  to  save  the  wealth  of  the  Church  for  the  poor,  for 
the  new  clergy,  and  the  cause  of  education.  To  Knox's  efforts  in 
these  directions  we  return  later. 


ARRAN,    ELIZABETH,   AND   AMY   ROBSART   (1560).         93 

Meanwhile  politics  and  diplomacy  resumed  their  reign.  The 
Estates  had  two  things  to  do  :  first,  to  secure  Elizabeth's  consent 
to  a  marriage  with  Arran.  They  had  confirmed  the  treaty  of 
Berwick,  but  they  would  feel  more  certain  of  the  English  alliance 
when  a  descendant  of  Bruce  shared  the  throne  of  the  Plantagenets. 
Secondly,  they  had  to  legalise  their  proceedings  by  sending  "  persons 
of  quality  "  to  visit  France,  and  secure  the  approval  of  Francis  and 
Mary,  and  the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  As  to  the  second  point 
they  cared  very  little.  Lethington  declined  to  visit  France,  and, 
against  his  desire  (for  he  had  tact  and  sense),  accompanied  the 
envoys  with  the  proposal  of  Arran's  hand  to  Elizabeth.  Having 
resided  much  in  England,  Lethington  knew  the  open  scandals  of 
the  Court,  and  the  flagrant  conduct  of  Elizabeth  while  the  Scots 
were  claiming  her  as  the  bride  of  the  heir-presumptive  to  their 
crown.  Elizabeth's  favourite,  Dudley,  was  involved,  and  was  in- 
volving his  mistress,  in  the  disgrace  of  his  wife's  murder. 
Elizabeth's  flirtation  with  Dudley  had  long  been  a  cause  of  anxiety. 
On  September  3  (or  August  3,  according  as  we  follow  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Mr  Froude  or  of  Mr  Gairdner)  Elizabeth  told  de  Quadra,  the 
Spanish  Ambassador,  that  she  would  marry  the  Archduke.  On  or 
about  September  7,  8  (the  dates  are  matter  of  dispute),  Cecil  told 
de  Quadra  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  to  kill  Dudley's  wife.  Amy 
Robsart,  who  seemed  to  stand  between  her  husband  and  Elizabeth. 
'■  On  the  day  following  this  conversation  "  Elizabeth  told  de  Quadra 
"  that  Lord  Robert's  wife  was  dead,  or  nearly  so,"  and,  in  fact,  Amy 
Robsart  was  found  dead,  at  the  foot  of  a  staircase  in  Cumnor  Hall, 
on  the  night  of  September  8. 

Much  has  been  written  on  this  affair,  and  on  the  question  as 
to  whether  Elizabeth  had  any  guilty  foreknowledge  of  Amy's 
death.  Mr  Froude  says,  "That  there  should  be  an  universal  im- 
pression that  a  particular  person  was  to  be  done  away  with,  that 
this  person  should  die  in  a  mysterious  violent  manner,  and 
yet  that  there  should  have  been  no  foul  play  after  all,  would 
have  been  a  combination  of  coincidences  which  would  not  easily 
find  credence  in  a  well-constituted  court  of  justice."  ^^  Whatever 
the  actual  truth, ^^  these  events  occurred  while  the  Scottish  am- 
bassadors were  on  their  way  to  ask  for  Elizabeth's  hand.  Arran, 
despite  his  defects,  was  a  very  brave  man.  Knox  was  his 
most  intimate  adviser  on  his  love-affairs.  Neither  seems  to  have 
blenched  at  the  idea  of  wedding  a  lady  whose  favourite  had  just 


94  MISSIONS   TO   MARY   AND   ELIZABETH. 

lost  his  wife  in  the  most  suspicious  circumstances.  Not  even 
EUzabeth's  "idolatry''  stood  in  the  way.  But  Lethington  did  not 
like  the  embassy.  Morton  and  Glencairn  were  his  companions. 
To  France  only  the  second  son  of  Sandilands  of  Calder  was  sent, 
a  married  man,  yet  Prior  or  Preceptor  of  the  celibate  order  of 
Knights  of  St  John.  This  messenger  was  not  "persons  of  suffi- 
cient quality"  (as  stipulated  in  the  compact  of  July  6),  and  his 
mission  was  a  failure.  Neither  to  Sandilands,  for  Scotland,  would 
Francis  ratify  the  Edinburgh  compact;  nor  to  Throckmorton,  for 
England,  the  treaty  of  July  6.  The  reasons  for  refusal  have  been 
indicated  already. ^^  The  manner  even  of  the  Scottish  ratification 
was  also  informal  and  not  duly  attested.  The  bishops  were  "dis- 
possessed or  fugitive."  The  Scottish  embassy  to  Elizabeth  was 
unauthorised  and  illegal.  Again,  the  promises  of  Francis  to 
Elizabeth,  in  the  English  treaty,  were  taken  to  be  dependent  on 
the  performance  of  the  stipulated  conditions  by  the  Scots.  The 
conditions  had  been  broken.  Francis  could  not,  then,  at  present 
ratify  the  English  treaty.^*  Elizabeth  was  very  angry,  but  consented 
to  await  the  results  of  the  mission  of  Sandilands  (September  24).^* 
Throckmorton  flatly  denied  Elizabeth's  part  in  the  conspiracy  of 
Amboise,  yet  "Throckmorton  had  been  the  very  focus  of  the  plot."°^ 
Mary  received  Throckmorton  seated,  and  gave  him  a  low  stool.  She 
said  that  she  could  as  ill  bear  injury  as  her  cousin  Elizabeth,  "and 
therefore  I  pray  her  to  judge  me  by  herself,  for  I  am  sure  she  could 
ill  bear  the  usage  and  disobedience  of  her  subjects  which  she  knows 
mine  have  showed  unto  me."  Then  she  made  friendly  protesta- 
tions, promised  her  portrait,  and  asked  for  that  of  a  lady  so  fair 
as  Elizabeth.  At  the  age  of  eighteen  Mary  was  already  obliged 
to  dissemble ;  for,  of  course,  Elizabeth  had  given  her  cause  of  deadly 
feud,  and  Throckmorton  and  Elizabeth  knew  it  well.  Sandilands 
sped  no  better  than  Throckmorton.  He  was  told  (November  14) 
that  the  Scots  were  setting  up  a  repubUc ;  and  that  to  send  him, 
"by  post,"  to  his  queen,  and  a  great  embassy  with  seventy  horses 
to  Elizabeth,  was  discourteous.  By  November  16,  Francis,  at 
Orleans,  declared  his  displeasure  with  the  Scots,  but  promised 
forgiveness  on  better  behaviour.  He  would  send  commissioners  to 
open  Parliament  legally,"^  Throckmorton  now  marked  French  pre- 
parations for  war,  and  was  told  that  Francis  would  quarter  the  arms 
of  England  (as  Elizabeth  quartered  those  of  France)  till  the  treaty 
was  ratified.     To  Throckmorton  Mary  denounced  with  passion  the 


DEATH  OF  FRANCIS  II.   WOOINGS  OF  ARRAN.    95 

behaviour  of  her  subjects.  He  warned  Cecil  (November  17)  that 
France  would  take  advantage  of  English  weakness  and  of  the 
discontents  about  Dudley.  Conde  was  in  prison  as  a  Huguenot 
conspirator ;  the  King  of  Navarre  was  held  tanquam  captivtis ;  the 
stormy  petrel,  Bothwell,  was  off  to  Scotland,  boasting  he  would  live 
there  in  spite  of  all  men.  "  He  is  a  glorious,  rash,  and  hazardous 
young  man,"  said  Throckmorton,  and  needs  watching. 

To  secure  Scotland,  in  case  of  a  French  war  backed  by  the  Pope, 
it  seemed  that  Elizabeth  must  marry  Arran.  In  Scotland  were 
many  dangerous  neutrals  :  Huntly  was  upholding  the  mass  in 
the  North  ;  Bothwell  might  trouble  the  Border.  France  was 
destroying  her  Protestants,  and  would  be  unhampered.  But  on 
November  28  Throckmorton  reported  the  illness  of  Francis.^* 
Already  men  spoke  of  a  new  marriage  for  Mary  !  Francis  died 
at  Orleans  on  December  5,  "  leaving  as  heavy  and  dolorous  a 
wife,  as  of  right  she  had  good  cause  to  be,"  for  Mary  had  watched 
by  his  bed  to  the  danger  of  her  health.  Thus  "  the  potent  hand 
of  God  from  above  sent  unto  us  a  wonderful  and  most  joyful 
deliverance ;  for  unhappy  Francis,  husband  to  our  Sovereign, 
suddenly  perisheth  of  a  rotten  ear,  .  .  .  that  deaf  ear  that 
never  would  hear  the  truth  of  God."  So  writes  Knox.^^  The 
dread  of  the  Guises  was  thus  appeased  ;  but  Elizabeth  now,  out 
of  fear,  declined  to  marry  Arran  (December  8).  "  What  niotive 
she  had  in  this  refusal  we  omit,"  says  Knox,  probably  with  Dudley 
in  his  mind.  The  Scots  were  ill  content,  and  Parliament  was 
summoned  for  January  15,  1561.  Meanwhile  "divers  conceits 
have  troubled  Arran's  mind,"  writes  Randolph.  In  earlier  de- 
spatches and  letters  are  hints  of  Arran's  ill-health,  probably 
cerebral.  People  spoke  to  him  of  a  marriage  with  Mary  Stuart. 
"  Of  all  these  matters  there  is  no  man  privy  except  Knox,  and 
he  whom  he  trusteth  with  the  whole"  (January  3,  1561).^*^  Arran, 
says  Knox,  "  was  not  altogether  without  hope  that  the  Queen 
of  Scotland  bore  unto  him  some  favour."  This  was  fatuous. 
Mary  deemed  him  "  an  arrant  traitor."  However,  he  sent  the 
new-made  widow  a  letter  and  a  ring.  The  reply  "  he  bare 
heavily  in  his  heart,  and  more  heavily  than  many  would  have 
wotted."  Knox  as  the  recipient  of  love-lorn  confidences  appears 
in  a  new  attitude.^^ 

The  Parhament  of  January  1561  did  very  little.  The  Lord 
James  was  appointed  to  go  to  France  and  see  Mary,  but  he   did 


96  MARY   A   WIDOW.      LORD    TAMES    STEWART. 

not  leave  Edinburgh  till  the  middle  of  March.  He  was  "  fore- 
warned of  the  Queen's  craft,"  says  Knox,  "  not  that  we  then 
suspected  her  nature,  but  that  we  understood  the  mahce  of  her 
friends" — that  is,  kindred  —  "the  Guises."  Lord  James  "was 
plainly  premonished  that  if  ever  he  condescended  that  she  should 
have  the  mass  privately  or  publicly  within  the  realm  of  Scotland, 
that  then  betrayed  he  the  cause  of  God."  He  said  that  he  saw 
not  who  could  stop  her,  if  she  had  the  mass  "secretly  in  her 
chamber."  Knox  and  the  Kirk  could  have  stopped  her  in  due 
course  of  law,  first  by  confiscation  and  corporal  punishment,  next 
by  exile,  lastly  by  death  ;  or  an  opportune  Jehu  might  have  been 
raised  up.  These  were  not  Lord  James's  ideas.  From  Edinburgh 
Lethington,  returned  from  the  futile  embassy  to  Elizabeth,  kept 
Cecil  well  informed.  The  Estates  on  February  6  had  been  sitting 
for  a  fortnight.  The  "  Polecie  of  the  Kirk,"  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
was  being  passed,  a  policy  "  something  more  vehement  than  at 
another  time  he  would  have  allowed."  Lord  James's  embassy  to 
Mary  was  tentative  :  the  Scots  did  not  wish  her  to  return  escorted 
by  a  French  force.  Lord  James  would  tell  Elizabeth  "what  he 
minds  to  do."  Nothing  will  be  settled  by  Scotland,  as  regards 
Mary,  till  Lord  James  "  has  fully  groped  her  mind."  There  was 
talk  of  renewing  the  French  league,  but  Maitland  had  staved  off 
the  question.  Mary's  name  and  cause  are  beginning  to  awake 
devotion  in  her  subjects.  On  February  6  Maitland  announced 
the  arrival  from  France  of  commissioners  from  Mary  to  assemble 
the  Estates,  and  induce  them  to  send  some  peers  to  advise  Mary 
"  anent  her  home-coming "  and  the  renewal  of  the  French  league. 
Maitland  himself  was  in  danger  on  account  of  his  "  familiarity 
with  England."  ""'^  On  February  i6  Mary,  at  Fontainebleau,  received 
Elizabeth's  envoys,  Bedford  and  Throckmorton.  As  to  the  treaty 
of  Edinburgh,  Mary  said  that  she  might  answer,  after  seeing  envoys 
from  Scotland,  Lord  James  and  others.  She  spoke  amiably  of 
Elizabeth,  and  desired  to  see  her.  In  fact  she  was  minded  to  send 
over  De  Noailles  for  the  renewal  of  the  old  league  with  France : 
this  was  attempted  later,  but  failed. 

Mary,  her  mourning  relaxed,  soon  began  to  move  about  the 
country,  to  Paris,  Rheims,  and  Nancy.  While  she  was  in  Lorraine 
her  hand  was  being  sought  by  as  many  princes  as  ever  wooed  a 
princess  in  a  fairy  tale.  By  the  treaty  of  Haddington,  made  before 
she  left  France  as  a  child,  Mary  could  only  marry,  if  Francis  died, 


THE   QUEEN    OF   MANY   WOOERS   (1561),  97 

by  the  advice  of  the  Estates.  The  King  of  Denmark,  the  King  of 
Sweden  (who  later,  like  Arran,  went  mad),  a  son  of  the  Emperor, 
and  Don  Carlos,  who  also,  by  a  strange  coincidence,  followed  the 
way  of  Arran  and  the  Swedish  king,  were  all  suitors,  or  spoken 
of  as  suitors.  Fate  brooded  blackly  over  every  pretender  to  the 
fairest  of  queens.  The  Guises  preferred,  Elizabeth  of  course 
opposed,  the  Spanish  marriage.  Already  Lennox,  who  had  a  son, 
Darnley,  worth  entering  for  the  prize  of  Mary's  hand,  had  been 
begging  leave  to  visit  Scotland,  and  to  sue  Mary  for  restoration  of 
his  lands,  forfeited  for  treachery  long  ago.  Elizabeth  tartly  answered 
that  this  was  "colour  for  a  higher  feather,"  and  that  Lennox  and 
his  wife  were  practising  as  her  enemies. "^^  Lennox  had  been  arguing 
that  Chatelherault  was  illegitimate  ;  whence  it  followed  that  he  him- 
self was  next  heir  to  the  Scottish  throne.  His  wife,  again,  was  a 
niece  of  Henry  VHL  Their  young  son,  Darnley,  was  thus  near  to 
both  thrones,  and  "  the  higher  feather "  was  the  desire  to  marry 
Darnley  to  Mary.  As  in  the  fairy  tales,  the  humblest  wooer  was 
to  win,  with  worse  results  than  if  any  of  the  princes  damaged  in 
their  wits  had  succeeded.  Catherine  de'  Medici  opposed  the 
cause  of  Don  Carlos  :    Elizabeth  opposed  any  foreign  marriage. 

Any  Scottish  marriage  would  have  seen  the  bridegroom  a  corpse 
in  a  few  weeks,  such  was  the  jealousy  of  the  nobles.  Mary  was  a 
doomed  woman.  While  she  was  near  Nancy,  envoys  from  the  two 
Scottish  parties  met  her.  Huntly,  Atholl,  Crawford,  the  Bishops  of 
Murray  and  Ross,  and  others  had  sent  John  Lesley,  the  historian,  to 
warn  Mary  against  her  brother.  Lord  James,  they  said,  only  wanted 
the  Crown.  He  ought  to  be  detained  in  France,  or  Mary  ought 
to  land  at  Aberdeen,  and  move  south  with  the  loyal  and  Catholic 
levies  of  the  North,  under  the  banner  of  the  shifting  and  faithless 
Huntly.  This  policy  might  have  been  better  than  trusting  the 
Protestants,  and  appearing  as  a  queen  among  men  who  daily  in- 
sulted and  persecuted  her  faith.  But  Mary  doubtless  knew  that 
no  man  could  rely  on  Huntly.^'*  She  therefore  leaned  to  Lord 
James,  coming,  as  he  did,  straight  from  interviews  with  Cecil  and 
Elizabeth.  Unhappy  queen :  betwixt  the  faithless  friends  of  her 
own  creed  and  the  allies  of  her  natural  enemy  and  cousin  !  Mr 
Tytler  explains  that  Lord  James  met  Throckmorton  secretly  in 
Paris,  and  "  betrayed  to  him  everything  that  had  passed  between 
his  sister  and  himself."  ^^  On  this  crucial  point.  Was  Mary's 
brother  a   deliberate   traitor   to   Mary  ?  there   is   a  dispute   among 

VOL.    II.  G 


98  A   COMPROMISE   SUGGESTED. 

the  learned,  which  may  be  discussed  in  a  note.*  In  any  case, 
Throckmorton  keeps  insisting  that  Lord  James  should  be  well 
"entertained"  and  "contented."  He  thought  that  ^^20,000  would 
not  be  too  much  to  spend  on  buying  the  Scots.^*^  On  May  4 
Lord  James  set  out  for  London,  whither  Mary  had  tried  to  per- 
suade him  not  to  go.^'^  In  England  (if  we  may  believe  Camden, 
who  is  not  the  best  of  authorities),  Lord  James  tried  to  induce 
Elizabeth  to  capture  Mary  on  her  way  to  Scotland.  On  May  29 
he  was  again  in  his  native  land.  On  June  26  Throckmorton 
congratulated  him  on  having  "stayed  many  things  that  might 
have  been  to  the  unquiet  of  the  country."  ^  Parliament  was 
meeting,  and  the  Catholics  appeared  in  some  force.  The  Brethren 
presented  a  petition  to  the  Council,  urging  more  destruction  of 
"  idols "  and  the  enforcement  of  the  persecuting  laws.  By  the 
"  Brethren  "  are  meant  the  General  Assembly. ^^  The  Lords  dis- 
missed Noailles  without  renewing  the  old  league  with  France,  and 
he  left  Edinburgh  (June  7).  The  Brethren  next  ravaged  a  number 
of  monasteries  in  the  west  and  north  ;  at  Paisley  the  Archbishop 
of  St  Andrews  "narrowly  escaped,"  says  Knox.  They  meant  to 
kill  or  capture  him,  it  appears.'*^' 

Meanwhile  Mary,  in  France,  had  been  in  bad  health,  and  had 
been  evading  Throckmorton's  demands  for  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  of  Edinburgh.  He  reasoned  with  her  at  Paris,  about 
June  23,  to  no  avail.  She  was  sending  d'Oysel  to  ask  Elizabeth 
for  her  safe-conduct.  Elizabeth,  in  public,  and  in  passionate  terms, 
refused,  and  (July  i)  wrote  to  the  Estates  insisting  on  the  ratifica- 
tion. Later,  she  spoke  more  placidly  :  if  Mary  would  ratify,  she 
would  be  ready  to  meet  her  in  a  friendly  way.*^^  Mary  threw 
away  this  admirable  chance  of  settling  the  feud.  Many  a  time, 
later,  was  she  to  pray  for  a  meeting  that  was  never  granted.  Eliza- 
beth was  now  clearly  in  the  right.  If  the  obstacle  to  the  ratification 
was  the  conduct  of  the  Scots,  that  had  been  practically  condoned. 
Mary  could  not  fairly  expect  to  be  allowed  to  travel  through 
England,  rousing  Catholic  hopes,  while  she  did  not  formally  recog- 
nise Elizabeth  as  England's  rightful  queen.  At  this  moment 
(July  14)  a  compromise  was  invented.  Cecil  tells  Throckmorton 
that  there  is  "a  matter  secretly  thought  of."  Mary  might  acknow- 
ledge Elizabeth  as  Queen  of  England,  might  recognise  the  right 
of  Elizabeth's  issue,  if  she  had  any,  and  might  herself  be  recognised 
*  See  "The  Lord  James,"  at  end  of  chapter,  p.  102. 


DECLINED    BY   ELIZABETH   (1561).  .         99 

as  heir,  failing  her  own  issue,  by  EHzabeth.  "  The  queen  knoweth 
of  it."  But  Elizabeth  declined  this  arrangement,  urged  on  August  6 
by  Lord  James.  The  day  she  acknowledged  Mary  as  heir  might 
be  a  day  near  her  own  death  by  assassination.'''-  Elizabeth 
may  have  calculated  rightly.  She  would  not  make  her  own  recog- 
nition as  Queen  of  England  a  matter  of  bargain.  Perhaps  she 
dared  not  recognise  Mary  as  her  successor  for  fear  of  being 
murdered.     Hence  arose  the  endless  feud  of  the  two  queens. 

Throckmorton  (July  26)  wrote  a  long  account  of  his  interview 
with  Mary,  after  she  heard  of  Elizabeth's  refusal.'^^  The  diplomatist 
was  married,  and  was  a  hardened  example  of  "  an  honest  man  sent 
to  lie  abroad  for  the  good  of  his  country,"  to  use  Sir  Henry  Wotton's 
definition  of  an  ambassador.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  girlish  and 
queenly  charm  and  courage  of  Mary,  so  young,  so  fair,  so  well 
acquainted  with  sorrow,  standing  in  the  perilous  path,  and  in  the 
clash  of  contending  forces,  moved  his  admiration.  She  dismissed 
the  courtiers  :  "  she  liked  not  to  have  so  many  witnesses  of  her 
passion,  as  his  mistress  had  when  she  talked  with  Monsieur 
d'Oysel."  She  was  sorry  that  she  had  asked  Elizabeth  for  a  favour, 
passage  to  Scotland,  that  she  needed  not  to  beg.  "  The  late  king 
'your  master'  had  vainly  tried  to  stop  her  on  her  way  to  France.""'* 
She  declined  to  be  brow-beaten,  as  if  she  were  too  young  for  affairs. 
In  the  past  she  had  acted  as  her  husband  desired  (of  course  it  must 
have  been  herself  who  swayed  the  boy-king);  now  she  had  no  French 
counsel,  and  must  consult  her  lords  at  home.  In  brief,  with  feminine 
ingenuity,  Mary  threw  the  blame  on  Elizabeth.  Mary  knew  very 
well  that  the  Estates  approved  of  the  ratification  of  the  Edinburgh 
treaty ;  there  was  no  need  to  consult  them,  but,  once  among  them, 
she  might  make  them  change  their  minds.  She  insisted  that,  since 
her  husband's  death,  she  had  disused  the  English  arms.  Throck- 
morton laid  the  strength  of  his  case  before  Catherine  de  Medicis, 
who  approved  of  Mary's  reply.  Later,  Mary  told  Throckmorton 
that,  her  preparations  being  advanced,  she  meant  to  sail ;  had  she 
not  been  in  readiness,  Elizabeth's  unkindness  might  have  delayed 
her  voyage.  If  EHzabeth  captured  her  and  made  sacrifice  of  her, 
so  be  it.  "  Perad venture  that  casualty  might  be  better  for  her 
than  to  live."     Better,  indeed,  it  would  have  been. 

Elizabeth  and  Cecil  knew  Mary's  purposes.  On  June  29  she 
had  written  to  Lethington,  who  was  trying  to  make  himself  secure 
with  her.      She   said  that  it  would  be  better  for  him  to  drop  his 


lOO  MARY   LEAVES   FRANCE   (1561). 

correspondence  with  England,  and  bade  him  try  to  have  the  Scots 
hostages  for  the  treaty  of  Berwick  withdrawn.  "  Busy  yourself  in 
undoing  what  you  have  brought  about " — that  is,  the  league  between 
England  and  the  Congregation.'^^  Lethington  predicted  "  strange 
tragedies"  if  Mary  returned  to  Scotland  (August  lo).^^  Perhaps 
he  wished  to  insinuate  that  Mary  should  be  trapped  at  sea,  like 
James  I.  On  July  25  she  left  St  Germain,  later  to  be  the  unhappy 
palace  of  her  exiled  race.  The  port  from  which  she  should  sail  was 
kept  secret.  On  August  1 1  Throckmorton  wrote  to  Cecil  and  to 
Elizabeth.  Mary  had  wished  to  see  him  again,  and  he  had  pre- 
sented himself  before  her  at  Abbeville  (August  7  and  8).  She  was 
sending  the  lay  Prior  of  St  Colm  (Stewart  of  Doune)  and  her 
loyal  friend  Arthur  Erskine  to  Elizabeth  with  a  friendly  letter. 
Elizabeth  (August  1 6)  replied.  She  accepts  Mary's  assurances  that 
on  her  arrival  in  Scotland  she  means  to  be  guided  by  her  Council. 
She  "  suspends  her  conceit  of  all  unkindness."  It  is  untrue  that 
her  fleet  is  at  sea  to  intercept  Mary ;  she  has  only  two  or  three 
barques  out  to  watch  Scottish  pirates.'^''  As  late  as  August  12, 
Cecil  had  written  that  these  barques  "  will  be  sorry  to  see  Mary 
pass."  "^^  If  Mary  had  succeeded  in  disarming  Elizabeth's  anger, 
she  did  not  know  it ;  she  had  sailed  before  Elizabeth's  answer  was 
received  Mary  had  sent  a  message  to  Scotland,  averring  that  she 
would  start  later  than  she  really  meant  to  do.  This  news  would 
reach  England,  and  throw  dust  in  English  eyes.  From  a  letter  of 
Lethington  to  Cecil,  of  August  15,  it  is  plain  that  the  wily  secretary 
was  at  once  perplexed  and  irritated  by  Mary's  manoeuvres,  and  by 
the  English  negligence  in  not  kidnapping  his  sovereign.  "  Why 
declare  yourself  enemies  to  those  you  cannot  offend  ? "  "^ 

On  August  14  Mary  said  an  eternal  farewell  to  the  Cardinal  and 
the  Due  de  Guise.  She  set  sail  with  her  four  Maries  (Mary  Seton, 
Mary  Beaton,  Mary  Livingstone,  and  Mary  Fleming — there  was 
no  Mary  Hamilton),  and  an  escort  of  French  and  Scottish  gentle- 
men. For  long  she  had  been  "  weeping,  night  and  day."  ^'^  Never 
had  woman  better  cause  to  weep  than  Mary  Stuart  as  she  set  forth 
on  that  path  where  her  sorrows  were  to  be.  A  girl  of  nineteen,  she 
left  the  fair  land  of  France,  her  kindly  nurse,  and  the  gentlemen  of 
her  blood  who  had  loved  and  cherished  her  youth.  She  passed  to 
a  bleak  shore  where  scarce  three  men  were  to  be  true  to  her ;  where 
her  faith  was  daily  and  brutally  insulted ;  where  her  advisers  were 
the  hirelings  of  her  rival ;  where  her  every  step  would  be  commented 
on  by  the  eloquent  and  charitable  Knox.      Over  her  devoted  head 

\ 


PREDESTINED    DOOM    OF    MARY.  TOI 

were  to  break  the  thunders  of  a  ruining  world  ;  her  weapons  were 
but  a  fair  face,  and  a  subtle  tongue,  and  an  indomitable  courage. 
No  conduct  could  have  saved  Mary  from  some  "  strange  tragedy," 
but  the  passions  that  slept  within  her  were  to  add  dishonour  to  her 
predestined  fall.  The  details  of  the  voyage  are  dim  as  the  sea  mist 
which,  earlier  or  later,  fell  on  Mary's  galleons, — the  protection  of 
heaven,  said  her  friends  ;  the  warning  of  an  angry  God,  said  Knox. 
On  August  19  she  arrived  at  Leith,  accompanied  by  Brantome, 
d'Elboeuf,  d'Aumale,  and  the  Grand  Prior  :  Mr  Froude  adds,  "  a 
passionate  Chatelar  sighing  at  her  feet."  He  says  that  the  Enghsh 
fleet  was  on  her  track,  and  "  if  the  admiral "  (what  admiral  ?)  had 
sunk  her  ship,  Elizabeth  "  would  have  found  it  afterwards  well 
done."*"'  M.  Philippson  makes  it  clear  that,  by  Cecil's  orders  of 
August  5  and  8,  Mary  was  to  be  detained  if  she  touched  at  an 
English  port.^^  But,  on  the  whole,  and  though  a  vessel  of  the 
cortege  was  detained,  it  seems  that  no  effort  was  made  to  stop  the 
queen.  That  she  did  not  write  the  pretty  Hnes,  "  Adieu,  plaisant 
pays  de  France,"  but  that  they  were  the  mystification  of  a  journalist, 
Meusnier  de  Querlon,  1765,  is  averred  by  that  destroyer  of  tradition, 
M,  Edouard  Fournier.^^ 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER    IV. 

^  Hill  Burton,  iii.  377  ;  Fcedera,  vol.  xv.,  May  12,  1560.  M.  Philippson,  in  his 
'  Marie  Stuart,'  equally  condemns  the  refusal  of  Mary  to  acknowledge  Elizabeth. 

^  Keith,  i.  294.  ^  Philippson,  i.  190. 

^  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  ii.  87,  note;  Teulet,  i.  606,  607. 

^  Tytler,  vi.  195  ;  vi.  227  (1S37).  ^  Keith,  i.  306. 

"  Keith,  i.  303.  ^  Keith,  i.  317.  ^  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  15. 

^^  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  ii.  86;  Calendar,  i.  455,  456;  Tytler,  vi.  176;  vi.  206 
(1837). 

"  Calendar,  i.  458.  ^^  Keith,  i.  300.  ^^  Calendar,  i.  456. 

1'*  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  ii.  87.  1^  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  525,  526. 

^®  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iii.  152  note.  ^^  Knox,  ii.  89-92. 

18  Randolph,  August  10.     Calendar,  i.  458. 

1*  September  7.     Calendar,  i.  477,  47S.  -"  Knox,  ii.  iiS,  119. 

'-'  Knox,  ii.  128.  Spottiswoode,  Willock,  Douglas,  and  Row  were  the  other 
authors. 

"^  Mitchell,  The  Scottish  Reformation,  100-102. 

"^  Maitland  to  Cecil,  August  18.     Calendar,  i.  465. 

-■'  Act.  Pari.,  ii.  534,  535.  -5  Lesley,  p.  537. 

2«  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  387.  27  Kgith,  i.  323-325. 

'^  Keith,  iii.  4-7,  and  iii.  128,  note. 


I02  NOTES. 

'•^  Keith,  iii.  4-12.     Maitland  to  Cecil,  September  6,  For.  Cal.  Eiiz.,  iii.  278. 

^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iii.  259.     This  is  how  I  understand  Randolph. 

^'  Knox,  vi.  13.  •*-  Mitchell,  The  Scottish  Reformation,  p.  127  and  note. 

3^  Knox,  iv.  179,  182.  ^^  Mitchell,  p.  143,  note  i. 

^^  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  pp.  73,  75.  '^  Knox,  ii.  202. 

^''  Mitchell,  p.  155.  •**  Latimer's  Sermon  of  the  Plou,'h,  Froude,  iv.  355. 

=**  Knox,  ii.  128.  ^  Knox,  ii.  130.  *^  Kno.x,  ii.  233. 

■*-  Hume  Brown,  Knox,  ii.  1 1 5. 

''■'  Hume  Brown,  Life  of  Knox,  ii.  116,  117. 

**  Hume  Blown,  Life  of  Knox,  ii.  121,  note. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  246,  247. 

■*®  Forbes  Keith,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  63-79. 

*'■  Keith,  iii.  424,  425.  *^  Leslie,  pp.  538-540. 

"^  Laing's  Knox,  vi.  153.  Winzet's  works  are  most  easily  accessible  in  the 
Appendix  to  Keith,  vol.  iii.  :  they  also  exist  in  the  Maitland  Club  book  of  1835, 
and  in  an  edition  by  the  Scottish  Text  Society. 

*"  Life  of  Knox,  ii.  178,  note  2.  ^^  On  the  affair,  see  Froude,  vi.  414-433. 

*^  See  Mr  Gairdner,  Historical  Review,  i.  235  ei  seq. 

^^  Teulet,  i.  623-629.  ^^  September  iS,  1560. 

'^  Teulet,  i.  635  ;  Throckmorton's  account  of  the  negotiations.  For.  Cal.  Eliz., 
iii.  246. 

56  Froude,  vi.  336.  s7  Teulet,  i.  63S,  639. 

®^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iii.  410.  ®*  ii.  134. 

««  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iii.  486.  «i  Knox,  ii.  137. 

*2  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iii.  531-534  ;  Teulet.  ii.  160.  January  23 — De  I'lsle's  In- 
structions. See  Mary's  Lettres  Patentes  of  January.  She  especially  wanted 
advice  as  to  fin.ince  and  the  appointment  of  a  treasurer.  Her  envoys  were 
"small  barons" — Preston  of  Craigmillar,  Ogilvy  of  Findlater,  Lumsden  of 
Blanern,  and  Lesley  of  Auchtermuchty.      Labanoff,  i.  80-88. 

^*  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iii.  415,  416.  "  Lesley,  p.  532. 

^  Tytler,  vi.  221  ;  vi.  257  (1837).     Philippson,  Marie  Stuart,  i.  297-299. 

«s  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  ^-j.  ^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  76. 

*^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  158.  ^^  Knox,  ii.  161-163,  note  2. 

"»  Knox,  ii.  167.  "  Yox.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  187. 

"  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  187,  note.  ''^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  199. 

"^^  "  King  Henry  "  is  an  error  of  the  summary-  of  Throckmorton's  letter  in  the 
Calendar.      See  Hay  Fleming,  p.  246. 

"^  Calendar,  i.  536.  ^^  Calendar,  i.  543  ;  Philippson,  i.  318. 

"  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  250.  ^*  Tytler,  vi.  230,  note  2  ;  vi.  269  (1837). 

''^  Tytler,  vi.  400,  401. 

*"  Languet,  July  13,  1561.     Schiern's  Bothwell,  p.  24,  note. 

*^  Froude,  vi.  511. 

*-  Hist.  MSS.  Commission,  xii.  ;  Appendix  iv.,  i.  73.    Philippson,  i.  337. 

^^  L'Esprit  dans  I'Histoire,  pp.  1S1-187  ;  Schiern,  Bothwell,  p.  41 1  ;  Hay 
Flemmg,  pp.  250-252. 

The  Lord  James. 

Tytler  accuses  Lord  James  of  having  "  betrayed  "  to  Throckmorton,  in  Paris, 
what  was  said  by  Mary  to  himself.  Dr  Hay  Fleming  ('Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,' 
p.  235)  combats  this  view,  which  is  also  that  of  ^L  Philippson.  Lord  James, 
though  he  went  "secretly"  to  Throckmorton,  told  Mary  that  he  had  paid  the 


NOTES.  103 

visit  (Philippson,  iii.  438).  But  did  he  tell  Mary  what  passed  between  him  and 
Throclcmorton  ?  Throckmorton's  letter  is  of  April  29  ('For.  Cal.  Eliz.,'  iv.  84). 
Wliatever  Lord  James  did  or  did  not  say  to  Throckmorton,  according  to  M. 
Philippson,  he  lied.  Lord  James  said  that  Mary  "  would  not  suffer  him  to  accom- 
pany her  to  Nancy,  in  Lorraine,  whereby  he  gathers  that  there  is  something  there 
in  hand  that  she  would  be  loath  he  should  be  privy  to."  But  Keith  (iii.  210) 
prints^  in  English  and  French,  a  letter  of  Mary's  to  Throckmorton  of  April  22, 
1562,  which  she  dates  from  Nancy,  where  she  says  that  Lord  James  is  "with 
her,"  il y  est  venue.  Why  did  Mary  say  he  was  with  her,  if  he  was  not? 
Why,  if  he  was  with  her  at  Nancy,  did  Lord  James  deny  the  fact  to  Throckmorton, 
and  throw  suspicion  on  his  sister?  It  is  on  questions  like  this  that  we  expect  light 
from  the  minute  researches  of  Dr  Hay  Fleming.  "To  make  Tytler's  charges 
good,"  he  says  (he  does  not  mention  Philippson's  charges),  "one  of  two  things 
must  be  established  —  either  that  Mary  had  revealed  her  secret  intentions  to 
her  brother,  or  that  he  believed  she  had.  Tytler  and  Hosack  prove  neither." 
What  do  facts  prove,  as  far  as  facts  can  be  obtained  from  what  Throckmorton 
said  that  Lord  James  said?  He  "declared  all  that  passed"  between  himself 
and  Mary.     What  passed  ? 

1.  Mary  would  not  let  him  go  to  Nancy  with  her.     Mary  tells  Throckmorton 

that  he  did  go  to  her  to  Nancy,  and  was  with  her  as  she  was  writing. 

2.  That  she  would  not  ratify  the  treaty  of  June  6  till  she  was  in  Scotland,  and 

had  the  advice  of  her  Estates. 
So  Mary  herself  later  told  Elizabeth. 

3.  That  she  desired  to  dissolve  the  league  between  England  and  the  Scots. 
Can  any  one  deny  that  this  luas  her  "secret  intention,"  and  public  intention,  for 
that  matter  ? 

4.  Lord  James  gave  the  gossip  of  Guise's  Master  of  the  Horse,  to  the  effect 

that  Mary  had  said  that  she  would  never  marry  Arran. 
A  brother  reports,  to  an  English  ambassador,  a  "horse-master's"  talk  about  his 
own  sister ! 

5.  That  she  will  try  to  get  the  consent  of  the  Estates  to  her  marriage  with 

a  foreign  prince. 
Either  Mary  said  so,  truly  or  falsely,  or  Lord  James,  falsely  or  truly,  said  that 
she  did. 

6.  She  cares  as  little  for  the  friendship  of  France  as  of  England,  and   has 

ordered   that   the   Estates   shall   not  meet,  or  any  matter  of  importance 

be  settled,  till  her  return. 
This  contradicts  Buchanan's  tale,  that  Lord  James  brought  a  commission  for  the 
sitting  of  Parliament.  As  to  the  friendship  of  France,  the  question  is  not.  Did 
Mary  express  her  "secret  intentions"?  but,  Did  Lord  James  tell  Throckmorton 
all  that  he  could  gather  from  her  about  them?  He  could  do  no  more,  and  he 
did  that,  or  he  fabled. 

7.  That  she  meant  to  return  by  sea. 

Nobody  can  be  sure  what  she  then  intended  ;  but  that  was  what  she  did, 

8.  That  she  pays  little  attention  to  the  suit  of  the  King  of  Denmark. 

9.  Murray  revealed  the  talk  of  Mary  and  Cardinal  Guise  about   Elizabeth's 

own  religion,  crucifix,  and  candles. 
Etifin,  Lord  James  either  told  all  that  he  could  tell  about  Mary's  intentions, 
or  he  concealed  or  falsified  them.     If  Lord  James  did  not  believe  that  what  he 
revealed  were  Mary's  "secret  intentions  "  he  ought  to  have  warned  Throckmorton 
to  that  effect.     Did  he? 


104. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MARY    IN    SCOTLAND. 
I561-1563. 

The  history  of  Scotland  after  Mar}''s  landing  is  so  rich  in  political 
events,  and  in  social  and  personal  interest,  that  a  concise  treat- 
ment must  leave  much  untouched.  Before  leaving  France,  Mary 
had  defined  her  attitude  towards  theology.  "  For  my  part,"  she 
had  told  Throckmorton,  "  you  may  perceive  that  I  am  none  of 
these  that  will  change  my  religion  every  year  ;  and  ...  I  mean  to 
constrain  none  of  my  subjects,  but  would  wish  that  they  were  all 
as  I  am,  and  I  trust  they  should  have  no  support  to  constrain  me."^ 
In  this  provisional  attitude  she  remained.  Her  desire,  doubtless, 
was  to  make  Scotland  a  stepping  -  stone  to  higher  things.  She 
might  marry  Don  Carlos,  she  might  make  good  her  claim  to  the 
English  throne,  she  might  recover  both  countries  for  the  Church. 
Meanwhile  if  she  could  secure  freedom  of  conscience  for  herself, 
and  attend  her  mass  in  private,  that  was  the  minimum  to  which 
she  had  a  human  right,  and  that  was  the  fine  edge  of  the  wedge. 
She  might,  and  she  did,  win  her  lords  to  insist  on  her  recognition 
as  heiress  of  the  English  crown,  failing  Elizabeth  and  her  issue. 
Her  lords  were  thus  no  longer  mere  adherents  of  Elizabeth.  For 
a  beginning  this  was  enough. 

Mary's  arrival  was  darkened  by  the  morose  climate,  and  by  pre- 
parations incomplete,  because  she  was  unexpected.  "Was  never 
seen  a  more  dolorous  face  of  the  heaven.  .  .  .  That  forewarning 
God  gave  unto  us,"  says  Knox.  The  queen  remained  in  Leith 
till  some  rooms  were  made  ready  in  Holyrood.  On  her  way 
thither  the  artisans  met  her.  They  were  under  excommunication 
for  a  May-day  riot  and  celebration  of  Robin  Hood.  "  Because 
she  was  sufficiently  instructed  that  all  they  did  was  done  in  despite 


KNOX    MEETS    MARY.  I05 

of  religion,  they  were  easily  pardoned."  -  Religion  had  Tittle  to  do 
with  Robin  Hood.  He  and  his  merry  men,  and  May  revels,  had 
been  put  down  before  the  Reformation,  probably  because  it  was 
usual  to  ask  for  money,  perhaps  with  violence.  If  the  craftsmen 
deliberately  acted  "in  despite  of  religion,"  the  new  creed  had  not 
sunk  very  deep,  and  we  see  many  symptoms  that  the  Edinburgh 
populace  was  not  steadily  Protestant. 

All  night  bonfires  blazed,  and  there  was  music,  probably  both 
sacred  and  secular.  All  went  well,  the  lords  flocking  to  salute 
the  queen,  till  Sunday  (Knox  is  too  consistent  to  say  "  Sabbath  "), 
August  24.  Preparations  were  made  for  the  mass  in  the  chapel 
royal  attached  to  the  palace,  not  in  the  Abbey  Church,  now  a 
picturesque  and  dreary  ruin.^  For  this  private  mass  Lord  James 
had  stipulated.  The  Master  of  Lindsay,  with  the  fanatics  of  Fife, 
bawled  against  the  "  idol,"  crying  "  the  idolatrous  priest  should  die 
the  death,"  contrary  even  to  the  penal  statutes.  Lord  James,  who 
never  lacked  courage,  held  the  chapel  door,  and,  after  service,  his 
brothers,  Robert  and  John,  conveyed  the  priest  to  his  chambers, 
"  and  so  the  godly  departed  with  great  grief  of  heart,"  thirsting  for 
clerical  blood.  On  the  following  day  the  Privy  Council  decreed 
that  none  should  molest  her  servants  or  French  companions. 
Mary  announced  her  hope  to  "  take  a  final  order,"  as  to  religion, 
by  advice  of  the  Estates.  Arran  publicly  protested  that  idolaters 
must  be  put  to  death,  and  he  retired  from  Court,  but  the  other 
lords  fell  under  "  some  enchantment  whereby  men  are  bewitched."  * 
Next  Sunday  Knox,  of  course,  denounced  the  mass  from  the 
pulpit.  One  mass  was  more  terrible  to  him  than  an  invading 
army  of  10,000  men.  Mary  sent  for  Knox,  probably  expecting 
her  enchantments  to  act. 

But,  though  fond  of  a  pretty  young  face,  Knox  was  of  adamant 
now.  Mr  Carlyle  says  "he  is  never  in  the  least  ill-tempered 
with  her  Majesty,"  but  Mr  Carlyle's  ideas  of  temper  were  peculiar. 
Knox  reports  his  own  remarks  in  several  hundred  lines  ;  Mary's 
part  in  the  drama  has  but  thirty  lines.  Mary  objected  that 
Knox  raised  rebellion  against  her  mother.  She  alluded  to  his 
tract,  '  The  Monstrous  Regiment  of  Women.'  She  said  that  he 
had  caused  slaughter  in  England,  and  was  reported  to  be  a 
necromancer.  Mary  appears,  from  a  later  charge  against  Ruthven, 
to  have  been  a  believer  in  black  magic.  She  asked  if  he  admitted 
her  "just  authority."  He  then  lectured  on  the  Republic  of 
Plato,  and   said   that,   if  the  country  found  no  harm   in  feminine 


I06  "I    WILL   DEFEND    THE    KIRK    OF    ROME." 

rule,  he  could  be  as  content  under  it  "  as  Paul  was  to  live 
under  Nero."  The  logic  was  curious  :  Nero  was  not  a  woman, 
and  the  fault  of  Mary  was  that  her  sex  was  not  that  of  the  Roman 
despot.  As  to  causing  trouble  in  England,  he  disproved  that, 
and  he  could  prove  that  he  actually  preached  against  magic  and 
magicians.  This  is  interesting,  as  before  the  Reformation  we  have 
found  so  very  little  about  witch-burnings.  They  soon  became 
common,  as  they  had  long  been  in  Catholic  Europe.  Mary  then 
put  it  to  Knox  that  he  taught  subjects  to  receive  a  religion  not 
permitted  by  their  princes.  Now  God  commands  subjects  to  obey 
their  princes.  Knox  replied  that  if  the  Israelites  had  been  of  the 
Pharaohs'  faith,  where  would  religion  be  ?  The  apostles  and 
Daniel  did  not  worship  with  Nero  and  Nebuchadnezzar — nay, 
Daniel  refused  to  do  so.  "  But  none  of  them,"  said  Mary,  "  raised 
the  sword  against  their  princes." 

"  God,  madam,  had  not  given  them  the  power  and  the  means." 

God  had,  in  fact,  given  Peter  the  means,  but  his  conduct  with 
his  sword  did  not  secure  the  approval  of  his  Master.  Knox  then 
likened  the  position  of  subjects  with  a  Catholic  prince  to  that  of 
children  whose  father  is  suffering  from  homicidal  mania.  This 
was  a  commonplace  of  the  opponents  of  Government :  it  constantly 
occurs  in  their  arguments.  Mary  was  silent  for  more  than  fifteen 
minutes.     Lord  James  asked  what  ailed  her. 

"  I  perceive,"  she  said  to  Knox,  "  that  my  subjects  shall  obey 
you  and  not  me." 

Knox  said  that  both  should  be  subjects  "to  God  and  his  troubled 
Church." 

"  Yea,  but  you  are  not  the  Kirk  that  I  will  nourish.  I  will 
defend  the  Kirk  of  Rome,  for  I  think  it  is  the  true  Kirk  of  God." 

"  Your  will,  madam,  is  no  reason,"  said  Knox,  adding  that  her 
Kirk  was  a  harlot :  a  good-tempered  observation. 

Mary  did  not  reply  that  his  Kirk  was  a  harridan,  but  said,  "  My 
conscience  is  not  so." 

Knox  remarked  that  conscience  requires  knowledge,  and  he 
feared  that  right  knowledge  she  had  none. 

So  the  discussion  went  on,  Mary  observing  that  Scripture  was 
variously  interpreted.  Knox  then  adopted  the  logic  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  chapter  xviii.,  which  is  reasoning  in  a  vicious  circle. 

"  You  are  too  hard  for  me,"  said  the  fair  theologian  of  eighteen ; 
"  but  if  they  were  here  that  I  have  heard,  they  would  answer  you." 


MARY'S   RECEPTION.  10/ 

But  Ninian  Winzet  was  not  there.  Knox  said  that  Papists 
could  only  answer  by  fire  and  sword.  That  was  not  the  way  of 
the  unanswered  Winzet.  Mary  was  now  called  to  dinner,  and 
Knox  said  farewell  with  courtesy. 

"  I  pray  God,  madam,  that  you  may  be  as  blessed  within  the 
commonwealth  of  Scotland,  if  it  be  the  pleasure  of  God,  as  ever 
Deborah  was  in  the  commonwealth  of  Israel."^ 

He,  unlike  some  of  the  godly,  as  he  tells  us,  was  without 
hope  of  Mary's  conversion.  "  She  is  patient  to  hear,  and  bears 
much,"  wrote  Randolph  to  Cecil.  Lethington  "wishes  Mr  Knox 
would  deal  more  gently  with  her,  being  a  young  princess  un- 
persuaded."  ^  "  In  her  comporting  with  him,  she  doth  declare  a 
wisdom  far  exceeding  her  age."  On  the  other  hand,  "  Mr  Knox's 
prayer  is,  that  God  will  turn  her  heart,  obstinate  against  God  and 
His  truth,  or,  if  the  Holy  Will  be  otherwise,  to  strengthen  the  hands 
of  His  holy  and  elect  stoutly  to  withstand  the  rage  of  all  tyrants." 
Mary  had  neither  tyrannised  nor  raged ;  it  was  Knox  who  called 
her  Church  a  harlot.  It  is  usual  to  defend  Knox's  conduct  towards 
his  young  queen.  Randolph  and  Lethington  did  not  approve  of  it : 
it  was  calculated  to  exasperate  the  humblest  spirit,  and  Mary's  spirit 
was  high. 

On  Tuesday,  September  2,  she  entered  Edinburgh  in  state  and 
among  pageants.  The  town  made  her  a  present  of  a  very  heavy 
Bible,  and  of  a  beautiful  piece  of  plate.  The  children  in  the  cart 
"made  some  speech  concerning  the  putting  away  of  the  mass."^ 
Even  the  children  must  lecture  the  queen !  Some  say  that  a 
priest  in  effigy  was  burned,  others  that  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram 
were  burned,  as  a  protest  against  idolatry.^  Other  insults  were 
heaped  on  the  queen's  religion.  She  went  to  Perth,  St  Andrews, 
and  Dundee ;  riots  and  insults  were  mingled  with  pageants  and 
presents.^  Meanwhile  Lethington  had  been  at  the  Court  of 
Elizabeth.  He  was  instructed  to  say  that  any  discourtesy  of 
Elizabeth's  to  Mary  would  be  resented  by  Mary's  subjects.^''  It 
is  also  plain  that  Lethington  was  to  propose  that  Elizabeth  should 
recognise  Mary  as  her  heir,  failing  herself  and  her  issue.^^  Elizabeth 
did  not  consent,  but  she  found  that  Mary  had  put  a  new  spirit  into 
the  Scots.  She  sent  Sir  Peter  Mewtas  as  an  ambassador,  and  Mary 
and  she  made  friendly  professions. 

In  Edinburgh  was  trouble.  The  newly  elected  magistrates  re- 
issued an  insulting  proclamation,  expelling  "  monks,  friars,  priests, 


I08  SUNDAY   AMUSEMENTS. 

nuns,  adulterers,  and  all  sic  filthy  persons."  The  queen  imprisoned 
the  provost  and  bailies,  and  ordered  a  new  election.  In  this  muni- 
cipal coiip  d'etat  Knox  says  that  she  was  backed  by  Lethington  and 
Lord  James.^-  The  autumn  and  winter  after  Mary's  return  from 
her  progress  were  spent  in  the  weaving  of  diplomatic  cobwebs,  and 
in  the  pleasures  of  a  young  and  lively  Court.  "  In  farces,  in  mask- 
ing, and  other  prodigalities,  fain  would  fools  have  counterfeited 
France.'"'  D'Elboeuf  had  not  yet  returned  home,  and  he  was  a 
wanton  reveller,  not  ill-mated  with  Bothwell.  The  Court  was 
much  subject  to  the  passion  of  love.  Lord  James  had  practised  a 
"  lang  courting,"  as  the  Scots  say,  of  the  Earl  Marischal's  daughter. 
A  previous  adventure  of  his  displeased  the  ungodly  ;  he  had  jilted 
a  lady,  but  retained  her  lands.  His  brother,  Lord  John,  lay  prior 
of  Coldingham,  "  is  Hke  to  marry  Lord  Bothwell's  sister."  Unlike 
Hippocleides  in  Herodotus,  Lord  John  was  dancing  himself  into, 
not  "  out  of,  a  marriage."  He  "  has  not  least  favour  with  his  leap- 
ing and  dancing."  "  Lord  Robert,"  of  Holyrood,  another  brother, 
"consumes  with  love  of  the  Earl  of  Cassilis's  sister."  Arran 
held  aloof,  first  as  a  stern  Protestant ;  next,  because  Bothwell, 
who  had  vainly  challenged  him  during  the  Regency,  was  likely 
to  renew  the  quarrel,-^^  which  arose  out  of  Bothwell's  stopping 
Ormistoun  with  English  gold  for  the  rebels  against  Mary  of 
Guise. 

Pastimes  were  boldly  pursued  on  Sundays,  indeed  on  a  Sun- 
day the  town  of  Edinburgh  feasted  the  queen.  It  appears  that 
the  primitive  Reformers  of  the  first  generation  had  no  idea  of 
making  Sunday  a  day  of  penitential  gloom.  Knox  did  not  even, 
like  his  descendants,  call  Sunday  "Sabbath,"  as  we  have  already 
noted.  Still,  they  could  not  approve  of  a  Sunday  "  running  at  the 
rings,"  with  six  competitors  disguised  as  women;  six  "in  strange 
masking  garments."  ^*  Such  were  Court  pleasures  :  perhaps  the  eyes 
of  Mary  Fleming  were  already  softening  the  heart  of  Lethington. 
Certainly  he  and  Lord  James  took  the  queen's  part  as  far  as  they 
dared.  Mary  held  the  usual  services  of  her  Church  on  Hallowmas 
or  All  Saints'  Day.  The  Reformation  never  succeeded  in  obliterat- 
ing Hallowe'en  and  its  rustic  survivals,  but  the  celebration  of  All 
Saints  was  bitterly  resented.  The  ministers  beat  the  pulpit  cushions 
in  denunciation.  The  nobles  were  induced  to  meet,  but  "  affection  " 
caused  some  to  doubt  "  whether  subjects  might  put  out  their  hand 
to  suppress  the  idolatry  of  their  prince."     Lord  James,  Lethington, 


•'EXCURSIONS   AND   ALARUMS.  TOQ 

Morton,  and  the  Earl  Marischal  were  of  a  Turkish  tolerance,  the 
principal  preachers  were  on  the  other  side.  It  was  decided  to 
consult  Calvin,  that  oracle.  Knox  offered  to  write,  but  Lethington 
observed  that  "  there  stood  much  in  the  information  " — that  is,  in 
the  way  of  stating  the  case.  Thus  Lethington  put  the  question  by, 
but  Knox,  "though  he  does  not  say  so  in  his  History,"  remarks 
Dr  Hay  Fleming,  "did  write  to  Calvin  on  this  very  point,"  and 
he  had  written  a  week  at  least  before  the  meeting  (October  24). 
He  informed  Calvin  that  at  Court  Lord  James  alone  opposed 
"impiety,"  but,  like  the  rest,  "is  afraid  to  overthrow  that  idol  by 
violence."  It  is  not  easy  to  see  why  Knox  offered  to  write,  when 
he  had  written  already.^^ 

Meanwhile  diplomatists,  studying  for  peace  with  England,  dwelt 
on  a  hope  that  Elizabeth  would  meet  Mary,  and,  as  Knox  might 
have  said,  would  convert  her  from  the  errors  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  to  those  of  the  Church  of  England.  Elizabeth  had  declared 
herself  a  Catholic  to  de  Quadra,  the  Spanish  Ambassador  :  Knox 
said  that  she  was  neither  Protestant  nor  Papist.  Her  creed  was 
negative  :  she  was  an  anti-Puritan.  But  Lethington  thought  that 
Elizabeth  "  would  be  able  to  do  much  with  Mary  in  religion,"  if 
they  met  in  a  friendly  way.^^  Their  theological  dialogue  would  have 
been  curious  to  hear.  In  Paris,  Throckmorton  thought  that,  if  the 
French  could  not  detach  Mary  from  Elizabeth,  they  would  pur- 
chase Arran  and  Chatelherault,  working  on  their  claim  to  the 
throne,  with  such  Catholics  as  Huntly  and  Home.^'^  A  nocturnal 
panic  at  Court  may  have  been  caused  by  suspicion  of  Arran.  Lord 
James  had  gone  to  the  Border,  to  hang  some  score  of  Teviotdale 
reivers.  Simultaneously  the  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews,  with  other 
prelates  and  Catholics,  entered  Edinburgh.  On  a  Sunday  night  in 
November  a  terror  fell  among  the  courtiers.  Next  day  Arran  was 
said  to  have  arrived  with  a  force,  to  carry  off  the  queen.  The 
report  is  said  by  Randolph  to  have  been  untrue,  but  it  led  to  the 
formation  of  a  kind  of  amateur  bodyguard  for  Mary.  Never  did 
woman  need  protection  more  than  she.  The  Catholics  themselves 
were  greatly  dissatisfied  :  the  prelates  were  trying  to  be  assured  in 
their  estates. ^^ 

Another  brawl  was  caused  by  an  insulting  visit  of  d'Elbceuf  and 
Bothwell  to  a  pretty  girl  who  was  thought  to  be  Arran's  mistress. 
Slogans  rose  and  swords  clashed  in  street  and  wynd,  and  Mary, 
reading,  or  at  needlework,  or  talking  with  her  ladies,  heard  danger 


no  NEGOTIATIONS   WITH   ELIZABETH   (1561). 

in  every  echoing  sound  of  horses'  hoofs.  A  General  Assembly  was 
held  in  December,  but  the  rift  between  the  lords  and  the  preachers 
was  widening.  Lord  James  and  Lethington  led  les  politiques,  as 
against  the  severe  sectaries,  the  bitterly  godly.  "Some  began  to 
deny  that  they  even  knew  such  a  thing  as  the  Book  of  Discipline," 
and  even  disparaged  General  Assemblies.  Mr  John  Wood,  later  to 
be  notable  among  Mary's  enemies,  deserted  the  cause.  Lethington 
raised  the  question,  afterwards  so  formidable,  of  the  lawfulness 
of  conventions  of  the  Kirk.  The  godly  asked  for  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  Lethington  successfully  opposed 
it :  meanwhile  there  was  no  provision  for  the  preachers.  Finally 
the  bishops  and  others  were  allowed  to  keep  two-thirds  of  their 
benefices ;  the  other  third  was  divided  between  the  queen  and  the 
ministers.  The  properties  were  assessed  and  valued ;  Knox  leaves 
a  blank  for  the  amount.^^  In  a  sermon  he  declared,  "  I  see  two 
parts  freely  given  to  the  devil,  and  the  third  part  must  be  divided 
betwixt  God  and  the  devil."  God  was  the  preachers,  the  devil 
was  the  queen  !  Lethington  remarked  that,  "  the  ministers  being 
sustained,  the  queen  will  not  get,  at  the  year's  end,  enough  to  buy 
her  a  pair  of  new  shoes."  The  ministers  in  general  received  only 
100  marks  annually.  On  the  other  hand,  by  this  procedure 
Mary  recognised  the  right  of  the  preachers  to  endowment.  Lord 
James  was  now  made  Earl  of  Mar,  and  could  afford  to  marry  his 
true  love,  a  very  careful  lady. 

"While  Mar  wedded,  and  Bothwell  brawled,  and  the  ministers 
starved,  and  Knox  likened  the  queen  to  the  devil,  the  shuttle  of 
diplomacy  flew  backwards  and  forwards.  The  object  was  to 
establish  friendly  relations  between  Mary  and  Elizabeth,  and  to 
secure  Mary's  recognition  as  Elizabeth's  successor.  The  patriotism 
in  Lethington  always  worked  for  this  end — the  union  of  the  Crowns. 
Elizabeth,  as  regarded  the  deferred  ratification  of  the  Treaty  of  Edin- 
burgh, was  ready  to  receive  a  private  letter  from  Mary.  Lethington 
strove  to  bring  Cecil  into  the  arrangement  for  recognising  Mary 
as  heir :  he  strove  in  vain.  At  last  Mary  wrote,  or  rather .  Leth- 
ington wrote  for  her,  from  Seton,  on  January  5,  \t^62r^  The 
Treaty  of  Edinburgh,  she  said,  was  prejudicial  to  her  legal  interest. 
She  is  near  descended  of  the  royal  English  blood ;  and  there  have 
been  attempts  to  make  her  a  stranger  from  it.  She  insisted  on 
the  compromise ;  she  must  be  acknowledged  heir,  failing  Elizabeth 
and  her  lawful  issue.     She  asks  for  an  interview.     There  the  matter 


ALLIANCE   OF   BOTHWELL  AND   ARRAN   (1562).         Ill 

Stood,  all  kinds  of  rumours  and  secret  plans  being  in  the  air,  till 
May,  when  Lethington  visited  Elizabeth,  and  all  seemed  to  go 
smoothly.  But,  as  we  shall  see,  the  interview  of  the  queens  was 
then  postponed,  owing  to  the  state  of  French  politics. 

In  Scotland  events  of  mysterious  interest  occupied  men's  minds 
during  the  spring.  We  have  seen  that  Bothwell,  the  staunch 
though  Protestant  ally  of  the  Regent  and  of  Mary,  had  been  at  feud 
with  Arran  and  Ormistoun  ever  since,  in  1559,  he  intercepted 
Ormistoun  and  relieved  him  of  the  money  sent  by  Elizabeth  to 
the  godly.  Now  Arran  had  been  behaving  in  an  eccentric  way 
during  February  1562,  Randolph  had  "marked  something  strange 
in  him  "  as  early  as  February  21.  He  was  nervous,  afraid  of  some- 
thing (perhaps  of  Bothwell),  he  wished  to  return  to  France,  and  he 
found  security,  for  eight  days,  in  bed  !  Randolph  heard,  however, 
that  his  feud  with  Bothwell  was  to  be  "accorded."  On  February 
28  Randolph  surmised  that  Arran  "would  play  some  mad  part."-' 
On  March  25,  1562,  Bothwell  went  to  Knox  and  asked  to  be 
reconciled  to,  Arran,  whose  confidant  Knox  was.  Bothwell  pro- 
fessed repentance  for  his  "  former  inordinate  life,"  his  attack  on 
Ormistoun,  and  his  usage  of  Arran.  He  could  not  go  to  Court, 
he  said,  for  fear  of  Arran,  without  a  crowd  of  armed  retainers,  and 
this  was  expensive  ;  so  he  wished  the  feud  ended.  Knox  assured 
Bothwell  of  his  goodwill,  based  on  old  feudal  allegiance  to  his 
house.  He  advised  him  first  to  be  reconciled  to  God.  Though 
Bothwell,  about  this  very  time,  chased  his  old  foe  Ormistoun,  and 
took  his  son  prisoner,  the  reconciliation  with  Arran  was  brought 
about,  to  the  joy  of  the  faithful.  The  foes  met  at  the  Hamilton 
chateau,  near  the  fatal  Kirk-of- Field,  Knox  being  present.  After 
a  private  conversation  they  parted,  and  next  day  met  "  at  the 
sermon,"  and  hunted  together. 

Knox  had  done  a  good  stroke  for  his  party.  Arran  was  a 
Protestant.  United  with  a  Protestant  Bothwell  he  might  achieve 
much  for  Knox's  cause.  Hitherto  Bothwell,  though  Protestant, 
had  been  true  to  the  Regent  and  to  Mary.  Four  days  later 
(March  29)  Arran  came  to  Knox  and  declared  that  Bothwell  had 
announced  to  him  his  design  to  seize  Mary  and  hand  her  over 
to  Arran,  to  keep  her  in  Dumbarton  Castle.  Mar  and  Lethington 
he  would  slay,  "  and  so  shall  Bothwell  and  I  rule  all."  In  Arran's 
opinion,  this  was  a  mere  device  to  trap  him  into  treason.  He 
meant  to  write  at  once  to  Mary  and  Mar  (whom  Knox  now  calls 


112  MADNESS    OF   ARRAN. 

Murray).  Knox  advised  him  to  be  silent.  He  was  innocent,  and 
to  accuse  Bothwell,  just  after  reconciliation,  would  look  ill.  He 
would  not  be  concealing  treason,  for  treason  implies  "  consent  and 
determination,  which  I  hear  upon  neither  of  your  parts."  Yet 
Bothwell  had  "  shown "  Arran  "  that  he  shall  take  the  queen." 
Morton  was  later  executed  for  concealing  Bothwell's  purpose, 
revealed  by  Bothwell  to  him,  of  killing  Darnley.  Possibly,  on 
the  question  of  law,  Knox  may  have  been  in  error.^"-  If  Knox 
perceived,  when  Arran  consulted  him,  that  the  nobleman  was 
insane  and  his  tale  an  illusion,  he  probably  did  well  in  counsel- 
ling him  to  say  no  more  about  the  matter.  But  Arran  was  not 
to  be  advised  :  he  did  write  to  Mary  and  Mar,  from  his  father's 
house  of  Kineil,  adding  that  his  father,  Chatelherault,  was 
"overmuch  bent  upon  Bothwell's  persuasions."  Immediately  after- 
wards, Arran  escaped  from  a  lofty  window  in  his  father's  house  of 
Kineil,  hurried  on  foot  to  Grange's  house  in  Fife,  and  was  brought 
by  Mar  to  the  queen  at  Falkland,  whither  Bothwell  also  came, 
"which  augmented  the  former  suspicion."  Knox  wrote  to  Mar, 
"  did  plainly  forewarn  him  that  he  perceived  the  Earl  of  Arran  to 
be  stricken  of  frenzy."  In  a  few  days  Arran  was,  or  affected  to  be, 
distraught,  averring  that  he  was  Mary's  husband.  In  a  Council  at 
St  Andrews  (April  15)  Chatelherault  was  obliged  to  give  up  Dum- 
barton Castle  to  the  queen.  Arran  had  been  examined,  and 
though  he  now  acquitted  his  father,  he  steadily  maintained  the 
charge  against  Bothwell,^^  "  The  queen  both  honestly  and  stoutly 
behaves  herself,"  wrote  Randolph.  She  was  moved  by  the  tears 
of  Chatelherault  when  accused,  truly  or  falsely,  by  his  son.  Both- 
well  was  warded  in  Edinburgh  Castle,  whence  he  did  not  escape 
till  the  end  of  August   1562. 

What  was  the  truth  in  this  mysterious  affair  ?  Mr  Froude  says 
that  Arran  "began  to  talk  wildly  of  carrying  INIary  off  from  Holy- 
rood  by  force.  In  the  Earl  of  Bothwell  he  had  a  dangerous 
companion  in  discontent.  In  common  with  the  other  Catholic 
noblemen,  Bothwell  had  found  his  services  to  Mary  of  Guise 
rewarded  with  apparent  neglect."  But,  of  course,  Bothwell  was  not 
a  Catholic  nobleman. 2*  Buchanan's  story  is  that  Bothwell  had 
spent  all  on  publicans  and  harlots.  His  only  hope  was  in  some 
bold  stroke.  He  therefore  invited  Mar  to  aid  him  in  cutting  off 
the  Hamiltons,  and,  when  Mar  refused,  approached  the  Hamiltons 
with  the  scheme  for  cutting  oft"  Mar  and  seizing  Mary.      The  rest 


LETHINGTON   VISITS   LONDON.  II 3 

of  the  Hamiltons  approved  (Buchanan  can  believe  anything  bad 
about  a  Hamilton),  but  Arran  detested  and  revealed  the  con- 
spiracy. He  wrote  to  Mar,  Mar  answered,  Chatelherault  opened 
the  letter,  and  shut  Arran  up  in  a  room  high  above  the  ground. 
He  escaped  and  went  with  his  tale  to  Falkland.  Apparently  Arran 
did  leave  Kineil  by  letting  himself  down  from  a  high  window,  and 
this  looks  as  if  he  were  under  arrest.^^  It  seems  that  Knox's 
advice  to  Arran,  that  he  should  conceal  Bothwell's  intentions, 
was  injudicious ;  but  Arran  was  certainly  mad,  and  there  was  no 
way  of  dealing  with  him. 

At  the  very  time  of  Arran's  escapade  (March  31)  Randolph  was 
writing  that  nobody  at  the  Scottish  Court  resented  the  imprisonment 
of  Lennox  by  Elizabeth.  Earlier  he  had  reported  his  beHef  that 
Mary  would  never  again  wed  so  young  a  lad  as  Lennox's  son,  Darn- 
ley.  Elizabeth  had  discovered  the  Lennox  scheme  for  this  marriage, 
and  had  placed  husband  and  wife  in  the  Tower.  Mary  did  not 
resent  it ;  her  politics  ran  entirely  on  her  hoped-for  interview  with 
Elizabeth.  On  May  23  Lethington  was  sent  to  negotiate  this  inter- 
view. It  was  opposed  by  the  Catholics,  and,  though  the  Protestants 
desired  it,  Knox  thundered  from  the  pulpit  against  the  Anglican 
religion.  The  idea  that  Mary  might  embrace  it  "  makes  them  run 
almost  wild,"  says  Randolph.  "  Last  Sunday  Knox  gave  the  cross 
and  candle  such  a  wipe  that  as  wise  and  learned  as  himself  wished 
him  to  have  held  his  peace."  Knox  was  "vehement"  in  favour  of 
''  hearty  love  with  England,"  but  did  not  increase  Elizabeth's  good- 
humour  by  "  wipes "  at  her  ritual.^^  INIary  as  an  Anglican  would 
have  been  as  odious  to  him  as  a  Catholic  Mary. 

Mary  was  now  engaged  in  a  double  current  of  affairs.  First, 
Lethington  went  from  her  to  Elizabeth  (May  23-31);  next,  a  papal 
nuncio  visited  her  secretly.  Since  December  1561  the  Pope  had 
been  encouraging  Mary  to  work  for  the  Church.  He  knew,  he  said, 
that  she  was  secretly  doing  her  best,  and  would  send  an  envoy  and 
bishops  to  the  Council  of  Trent. ^^  The  Pope  was  mistaken.  The 
Legate,  Nicholas  Gouda,  left  Antwerp  in  June,  arriving  in  Scotland 
on  the  1 8th.  After  skulking  for  a  month  in  Errol,  he  saw  Mary 
while  the  courtiers  were  at  sermon  on  July  24.  She  thought  it 
impracticable  to  send  the  bishops  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  but 
would  rather  die  than  change  her  creed.  She  could  not  grant  a 
safe-conduct,  nor  punish  any  one  who  murdered  the  Legate.  That 
was  all.     Gouda  wrote  the  report  on  the  Catholics  already  cited, 

VOL.    II.  H 


114  MARY   BETWEEN    ROME    AND    ENGLAND. 

and  returned  to  the  Continent  with  a  few  lads  who  became  Jesuits.-' 
To  the  Council  of  Trent,  Cardinal  Guise,  and  the  Pope,  Mary  wrote 
in  the  same  terms  as  she  had  spoken  to  Gouda.^^  She  would  be 
happy  to  improve  the  wretched  religious  condition  of  her  kingdom 
by  all  possible  "  studies,  thought,  labour,  and  effort,"  even  at  the 
cost  of  her  life.  These  phrases  are  not  confessions  of  a  secret 
conspiracy  against  Protestantism.  It  is  curious  that  her  adver- 
saries do  not  remark  one  simple  fact.  What  Mary  said  to  Gouda, 
and  to  the  Pope,  she  had  already  said  to  Knox :  "  Ye  are  not 
the  Kirk  that  I  will  nourish.  I  will  defend  the  Kirk  of  Rome, 
for,  I  think,  it  is  the  true  Kirk  of  God."  ^^  Mary  made  no 
secret  about  the  matter.  She  would  live  and  die  a  Catholic ; 
as  far  as  her  influence  went  she  would  defend  and  nourish  the 
Church.  This  is  not  the  language  of  a  woman  engaged  in  a 
"  conspiracy,"  as  Mr  Froude  says,  "  prepared  to  hide  her 
purpose  till  the  moment  came  to  strike,  yet  with  a  purpose  res- 
olutely formed  to  trample  down  the  Reformation."  "^  A  queen 
who  confesses  her  "  purpose "  to  the  hostile  Knox  cannot,  in 
fairness,  be  said  to  "  hide  her  purpose."  ^^  That  Mary  could 
not  "  defend,"  still  less  "  nourish,"  her  Church  and  her  co-re- 
ligionists was  presently  to  be  made  manifest. 

Almost  simultaneous  with  the  Legate's  arrival  in  Scotland,  where 
his  life  was  not  worth  a  pin's  fee,  were  Lethington's  negotiations  in 
London.  To  arrange  an  interview  between  Elizabeth  and  Mary 
was  difficult,  and  finally  proved  to  be  impossible.  The  diplomacy 
of  the  hour  is  interesting  to  the  student  of  character,  but  too  complex 
for  an  exposition  in  detail.  In  France  during  1561  the  House  of 
Lorraine  had  been  in  the  shade,  and  Catherine  de'  Medici  had 
been  in  favour  with  Conde  and  the  Huguenots,  so  lately  within  an 
inch  of  destruction.  The  Due  de  Guise,  however,  had  gained  to 
his  cause  the  Constable  (Montmorency),  the  Marshal  de  St  Andre, 
and  the  King  of  Navarre.  The  Grand  Prior  and  de  Damville, 
returning  from  their  escort  of  Mary  Stuart,  had  tried  to  make  friends 
of  the  English  Court,  and  in  Paris  the  Due  de  Guise  endeavoured 
to  conciliate  Throckmorton.  So  far  the  influence  of  the  Guises  was 
in  favour  of  the  reconciliation  between  Mary  and  Elizabeth :  it 
strengthened  them,  as  against  Catherine  de'  Medici.  Mary  herself, 
in  the  winter  of  1561,  had  pleaded  the  Guises'  cause  with  Elizabeth. 
To  Throckmorton  Elizabeth  gave  orders  to  favour  the  Guises,  as  he 
wrote  to   Mary   himself  (February   16,    1562).^^     Thus   everything 


ELIZABETH   WILL   NOT   MEET   MARY.  1 15 

had  seemed  propitious  for  the  royal  interview.  But  in  March  1562 
the  religious  hatreds  of  France  broke  into  flame.  In  Scotland  the 
Calvinists  could  safely  insult  their  queen's  religion  and  beat  her 
priests.  In  France  the  Guises  would  tolerate  no  such  indignities 
from  the  Huguenots.  The  massacre  of  Vassy,  provoked  by 
Huguenot  offences  to  the  Duke  or  not,  was  the  beginning  of 
tumults  and  cruelties  wrought  by  each  faction.  From  Paris 
Throckmorton  announced  a  general  Popish  plot,  even  in  Scotland.^* 
As  to  Scotland,  we  know  no  proof  of  any  such  design. 

Elizabeth  cannot  have  been  more  amicably  inclined  towards 
Mary,  while  her  uncles  were  threatening  the  Protestant  cause  in 
France,  nevertheless  Lethington  was  well  received  in  June.  Eliza- 
beth consented  to  the  interview.  Feline  amenities  and  expres- 
sions of  affection  passed  between  the  rival  queens.  But  (June 
13)  the  French  Ambassador  in  London,  de  Foix,  reported  thai 
Elizabeth's  council  was  hostile.^^  On  July  i  he  announced  that 
the  interview  was  expected  to  be  near  York  on  September  8, 
but  that  Lethington  had  no  written  assurance.  He  did  not  like 
the  scheme.  Mary  would  probably  marry  Don  Carlos,  and  an 
Anglo-Spanish  combination,  if  Mary  came  to  the  English  throne, 
would  be  dangerous  to  France.^*'  But  despite  the  opposition  of 
the  Council,  all  seemed  well  till  the  middle  of  July.  Various 
places  and  dates  were  spoken  of,  under  the  condition  that  the 
state  of  affairs  in  France  proved  favourable.  But  they  did  not.  In 
July  Elizabeth  sent  Sir  Henry  Sidney  to  tell  Mary  that  the  inter- 
view might  not  be.  Guise  had  broken  faith  with  Conde,  the 
common  people  had  licence  to  attack  church-wreckers.  General 
persecution  without  form  of  law  was  initiated  by  the  Guises. 
EHzabeth  could  not  leave  the  Court  at  such  a  juncture,  but  would 
meet  Mary  next  summer.  The  Privy  Council  of  Scotland  on 
August  15  notified  the  arrival  of  this  offer,  but  "  would  nowise  give 
Mary  counsel  to  commit  her  body  in  England  ;  and  therefore  referred 
the  place  of  meeting,  and  the  security  of  her  own  person,  to  herself."  '^"^ 
On  August  14,  at  Perth,  Mary  accepted  Elizabeth's  new  proposal.^^ 
Sidney  reached  Edinburgh  on  July  21,  and  saw  Mary  on  the  23rd. 
She  received  his  message  "with  watery  eyes."^^  It  seems  probable 
that  Elizabeth  would  not  have  met  Mary  in  any  case.  She  always,  in 
the  end,  preferred  abstention  to  action,  as  her  many  wooers  knew. 
During  Lethington's  absence  in  London,  Lord  James  had  chastised 
the  Borderers.     He  entered  Hawick  on  market-day,  and  many  a  wife, 


Il6  COUNTY   FAMILY   SCANDALS. 

"  up  the  water,"  waited  vainly  to  hear  her  husband's  horse's  hoofs 
returning.  Lord  James  caught  and  drowned  a  score  or  two  of 
honest  Scotts  and  ElHots — drowned  them  for  lack  of  ropes  to  hang, 
and  trees  to  hang  them  on."^*^ 

At  Edinburgh,  while  Mary  still  hoped  for  the  original  tryst  with 
Elizabeth,  events  not  without  sequence  occurred.  The  General 
Assembly  met  on  June  29.  They  sent  a  document  to  Mary, 
warning  her  against  "  perishing  in  her  own  iniquity,"  and  asking 
that  adulterers  should  be  punished.  The  death-penalty  was  what 
the  Kirk  desired.  They  pleaded  the  cause  of  the  poor,  from 
whom  the  purveyors  of  the  Kirk's  and  queen's  third  extorted  their 
last  penny.  "  It  is  a  wonder  that  the  sun  giveth  light  and  heat 
to  the  earth,  where  God's  name  is  so  frequently  called  upon  and  no 
mercy  (according  to  His  commandment)  shown  to  His  creatures." 
So  much  the  poor  had  gained  by  the  Revolution.  Public  re- 
lief, from  the  teinds  and  other  sources,  was  demanded — in  fact, 
a  kind  of  Poor  Law.  A  threat  was  uttered  against  Catholics 
who,  where  they  had  power,  "troubled  the  ministers."  The  en- 
forcement of  the  penal  statutes  was  called  for,  but  Lethington 
denounced  the  belief  that  Mary  "  would  raise  up  Papists  and 
Papistry  again."  The  threat  that  the  godly  would  again  take  the 
law  into  their  own  hands  was  resented.  Lethington  presented  an 
expurgated  version  of  the  Assembly's  petition,  and  nothing  came  of 
it  all.     (Knox,  ii.  337-344.) 

Two  days  before  the  Assembly,  on  June  27,  a  curious  affray 
occurred.  Long  ago  Ogilvie  of  Findlater  had  taken  a  Gordon  lady 
for  his  second  wife,  and  had  disinherited  James  Ogilvie,  his  son  by 
his  first  wife.  His  lands  at  this  time  were  in  the  possession  of 
John  Gordon,  a  younger  son  of  the  fickle  Earl  of  Huntly.  Find- 
later's  reasons  for  disinheriting  his  own  son  are  stated  thus  by 
Randolph  :  The  son  "  had  solicited  his  father's  wife  to  dishonesty, 
both  with  himself  and  with  other  men."  Again,  he  plotted  to  lock 
his  father  up  in  a  dark  house  [room],  and  keep  him  waking  (as 
witches  were  used  to  be)  till  he  went  stark  mad.  On  the  old 
gentleman's  death  his  wife  married  the  heir,  John  Gordon,  who 
"  locked  her  up  in  a  close  room,  where  she  remains."  '^^  From 
these  family  jars  came  a  fight  in  Edinburgh  streets  on  June  27, 
when  Lord  Ogilvie  was  wounded,  and  Gordon  was  imprisoned. 
He  fled  to  his  father,  Huntly,  on  July  25.  Mary  had  meditated 
a  progress  to  the   North   before   Easter.*-     Probably  it  was   only 


MARY   OVERTHROWS   HUNTLY    (OCTOBER    1562).        II7 

deferred  during  the  negotiations  with  England.  On  August  10 
Randolph,  who  was  obliged  to  accompany  her,  ruefully  reported 
her  design  to  go  to  Inverness.*^  Mary  at  this  moment  was  in- 
sulted by  Captain  Hepburn,  who  sent  her  obscene  verses  and 
drawings,  and  fled.  This  was  probably  a  revenge  for  Bothwell, 
still  a  prisoner  in  Edinburgh  Castle.  On  August  31  Randolph 
announced  Mary's  presence  at  Aberdeen.  Huntly  was  out  of 
favour,  and  she  would  not  visit  him,  though  his  house  was  but 
three  miles  distant.  He  had  been  adverse  to  the  meeting  with 
Elizabeth,  he  was  notoriously  perfidious,  his  extortions  were  great, 
and  he  was  suspected  of  advising  his  son  John  not  to  enter  him- 
self prisoner  after  his  escape  from  prison.  Lastly,  when  the  queen 
reached  Inverness,  on  September  9,  she  asked  for  the  castle,  which 
was  held  for  Huntly  as  sheriff.  The  castle  declined  to  admit  her, 
but  surrendered  next  day,  when  the  captain  was  hanged.  Mary 
stayed  for  five  days  at  Inverness,  and  then  went  to  Spynie  in  Moray, 
the  house  of  the  bishop.  Huntly  was  expected  to  resist  her  at  the 
passing  of  the  Spey.  Mary  regretted  that  she  was  not  a  man,  "  to 
know  what  life  it  was  to  lie  all  night  in  the  fields,  or  to  walk  on  the 
causeway  with  a  jack  and  knapschalle  [steel  cap],  a  Glasgow  buckler, 
and  a  broadsword"  (September  18). 

Huntly,  indeed,  did  send  a  force  under  his  son  John,  but  they 
retreated  before  the  queen's  army.  Bothwell,  who  had  escaped 
from  prison,  sent  in  his  submission,  but  "  her  purpose  is  to  put  him 
out  of  the  country."  Knox  thought  that  Bothwell  escaped  by 
Mary's  connivance.  On  returning  to  Aberdeen,  Mary  gave  to  Mar 
the  long-coveted  earldom  of  Murray  (September  18).  To  Huntly 
she  sent,  demanding  surrender  of  a  cannon  which  he  possessed  (Sep- 
tember 25).  Huntly  protested  his  loyalty  to  her  messenger  v^•ith 
tears,  and  Lady  Huntly  implored  her  grace  in  the  name  of  their 
common  religion.  Mary  laughed  at  their  entreaties.  On  October  9, 
Mary  being  still  at  Aberdeen,  Huntly  fled  from  his  house  of  Strath- 
bogie.  On  the  15th  he  was  threatened  with  outlawry  if  he  did  not 
instantly  surrender.  Meanwhile  Huntly's  eldest  son  went  to  Chatel- 
herault,  and  there  was  talk  of  his  leaguing  himself  with  Bothwell. 
Finally,  on  October  28,  Randolph  reports  that  Huntly,  with  a  small 
force,  has  been  defeated  (at  Corrichie),  and  has  died  suddenly,  as  a 
prisoner, — "  without  blow  or  stroke  suddenly  he  fell  from  his  horse, 
stark  dead."  John  Gordon  was  executed  on  November  2,  Huntly's 
body  was  brought  to  Edinburgh,  young  Adam  Gordon  was  spared. 


Il8  MARYS    MOTIVES. 

In  May  1563  the  dead  man  was  tried,  and  forfeited,  with  his  de- 
scendants. His  eldest  son  was  condemned,  but  was  released  after 
Mary's  marriage. 

This  uprooting  of  her  chief  Catholic  noble,  by  a  Catholic  queen, 
has  been  diversely  interpreted  by  historians.  We  have  followed  the 
account  by  Randolph,  an  eyewitness  and  a  man  not  easily  deceived. 
Knox,  on  the  other  hand,  was  in  Ayrshire,  disputing  with  Quentin 
Kennedy  and  collecting  rumours.  "  Mr  Knox,"  says  Randolph, 
"has  many  times  given  him  warning  of  practisers,  but  this  is  the 
first  that  he,  or  any  man,  could  assure  him  of."  Randolph  leaves 
no  doubt  that  Mary  was  intent  on  her  expedition,  and  became 
hostile  to  Huntly.  It  was  she  who  refused  to  visit  him  at 
Strathbogie,  "her  Council  find"  the  refusal  to  go  "expedient" 
(August  31).  She  has  just  cause  for  disliking  Huntly  of  long  time 
"  for  manifest  tokens  of  disobedience  no  longer  to  be  borne  "  (Sep- 
tember 18).  "The  queen  is  highly  offended."  "She  will  do 
something  that  will  be  a  terror  to  the  others."  "  I  never  saw 
her  merrier,  never  dismayed,  nor  never  thought  so  much  to  be 
in  her  as  I  find."  "  She  trusts  to  put  the  country  in  good  quiet- 
ness "  (September  23).  "She  beheved  not  a  word"  (of  Huntly's 
or  Lady  Huntly's  apologies),  "and  so  declared  the  same  herself 
unto  her  Council "  (September  30).  "  She  is  determined  to  pro- 
ceed against  them"  (the  Gordons)  "with  all  extremity"  (October 
12).  She  refused  the  keys  of  two  castles  which  Huntly  sent  in 
by  a  groom.  "  She  said  that  she  had  provided  other  means  to 
open  those  doors."  "The  queen  is  determined  to  bring  Huntly 
to  utter  confusion."  She  declined  to  see  Lady  Huntly  (October 
23).  On  the  trial  of  the  prisoners  of  Corrichie,  she  "declared 
how  detestable  a  part  Huntly  thought  to  have  used  against  her,  as 
to  have  married  her  where  he  would,  to  have  slain  her  brother" 
(November  2).'^^     Such  are  the  comments  of  an  eyewitness. 

Turn  to  Knox.  Says  Randolph,  "  He  is  so  full  of  distrust  in  all 
her  [Mary's]  doings,  as  though  he  were  either  of  God's  privy  council 
that  knew  how  he  had  determined  of  her  from  the  beginning,  or 
that  he  knew  the  secrets  of  her  heart  so  well  that  neither  she  did 
or  could  have,  for  ever,  one  good  thought  of  God,  or  of  His  true 
religion."  *°  In  Knox's  theory,  "  one  thing  is  certain,  to  wit,  the 
queen  was  little  offended  at  Bothwell's  escaping."  Yet  Knox 
himself,  he  tells  us,  induced  the  Master  of  Maxwell  to  write  to 
Bothwell,  bidding  him  be  a  good  subject,  that  his  crime  of  break- 


KNOX'S   SUSPICIONS   OF   MARY.  II9 

ing  jail  might  be  pardoned.  Randolph  says  she  was  determined 
to  exile  Bothwell.  Knox  holds  that  when  Huntly's  eldest  son 
went  to  Chatelherault,  it  was  to  bid  him  rebel  in  the  South  as  he 
would  in  the  North,  despite  "  Knox's  crying  nor  preaching."  *^  He 
admits  that  Mary  was  really  in  anger  with  Huntly  when  she  refused 
to  visit  Strathbogie.  She  was  "  inflamed  "  when  John  Gordon  cut 
off  a  patrol  of  hers ;  but  he  doubts  if  she  acted  lawfully  in  thereon 
putting  Huntly  "to  the  horn."  He  says  that  Huntly  expected 
many  of  Mary's  forces  to  side  with  him.  The  van  of  Mary's  men 
fought  ill  (this  seems  to  be  certain),  and  Knox  attributes  it  to 
treachery.  Mary  "  gloomed  "  on  hearing  of  her  victory  at  Corrichie. 
Murray's  success  "  was  very  venom  to  her  boldened  heart  against 
him  for  his  godliness.  ...  Of  many  days  she  bore  no  better  coun- 
tenance, .  .  .  albeit  she  caused  execute  John  Gordon  and  divers 
others,  yet  it  ivas  the  destruction  of  others  that  she  sought^ 

The  real  plan  was  "that  Murray  should  with  certain  others 
have  been  taken  at  Strathbogie ;  the  queen  should  have  been 
taken  and  kept  at  the  devotion  of  the  said  Earl  of  Huntly." 
So  Mary  herself  told  Randolph ;  but  Knox,  in  contradiction  of 
his  own  story,  avers  that  "  it  was  the  destruction  of  others  that 
she  sought,"  as  if  she  had  been  Huntly's  accomplice.  Knox's 
method  of  writing  history  is  astonishing.  He  avers  that  Mary 
received  Huntly  well,  during  her  journey,  at  Buchan  and  Rothie- 
may ;  that  she  was  "  offended "  when  John  Gordon  broke  promise 
to  render  himself  prisoner;  that  she  was  later  "inflamed"  more 
and  more,  —  by  Huntly's  refusal  to  yield  two  castles  (which  he 
did  yield),  and  by  John  Gordon's  treacherous  attack  on  her  patrol. 
All  this  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  a  plot  between  Mary  and 
Huntly.  Yet  he  writes,  "Whether  there  was  any  secret  practice 
and  confederacy  .  .  .  betwixt  the  queen  herself  and  Huntly, 
we  cannot  certainly  say."  *'^  The  whole  circumstances  which 
Knox  has  related,  Mary's  original  attitude  to  Huntly,  and  the 
repeated  offences  which  "  inflamed "  her  against  him,  confirm 
Randolph's  account,  and  confute  the  suspicions  of  the  Reformer, 
Mr  Froude  charitably  supposes  that  Mary  had  a  double  policy. 
If  Huntly  could  defeat  Murray,  and  "set  her  at  Hberty," — well. 
If  Murray  defeated  Huntly,  and  so  dropped  his  suspicions  of 
herself, — well.*^  "Her  brother  read  her  a  cruel  lesson  by  com- 
pelling her  to  be  present  at  the  execution."  The  authority  is 
not  given. 


120  BUCHANANS    ROMANCE. 

These  subtleties  are  futile.  Mary  was  angered  by  Huntly's 
offences,  and  confirmed  in  her  opinion  of  him  by  the  confessions 
of  his  son  John,  and  of  a  retainer  of  his,  Thomas  Ker.  Murray,  of 
course,  gained  by  Huntly's  fall,  and  so  did  the  Protestant  cause. 
We  have  seen  an  example  of  the  gratitude  of  a  preacher.  Mary 
was  true  to  her  Church,  but  she  was  a  queen,  and  true,  so  far,  to 
her  duties  as  a  sovereign.  George  Buchanan  tells  an  interesting 
historical  romance  on  the  whole  subject.  The  Guises  saw  that  they 
could  not  restore  the  Church  while  Murray  lived.  They  trusted  in 
Huntly.  They  therefore  advised  Mary  to  allure  his  son,  John  Gordon 
(a  married  man),  with  hopes  of  her  hand  :  he  might  be  useful  in  a 
massacre  of  Protestants.  The  Pope  and  a  cardinal  urged  on  Mary 
the  same  advice.  Mary  showed  their  letters  to  Murray,  such  was 
her  artfulness.*®  The  plot  being  laid,  Mary  went  to  Aberdeen  : 
Lady  Huntly,  knowing  that  Mary  hated  Huntly  and  Murray  equally, 
tried  to  fathom  her  designs.  But  Huntly  secured  Mary  by  promis- 
ing to  restore  the  Church.  Mary  came  into  the  plot  to  murder 
Murray,  only  stipulating  that  John  Gordon  should  first  surrender. 
But  John  got  together  looo  men  and  hung  about  round  Aberdeen. 
Murray  knew  his  own  danger.  The  murder  was  to  be  done  when 
Mary  and  Murray  visited  Strathbogie.  But  Huntly  would  not  con- 
cede the  point  of  his  son's  surrender,  and  to  Strathbogie  Mary 
would  not  go.  Then  came  the  refusal  to  hand  over  Inverness 
Castle,  which  turned  all  Mary's  wrath  on  the  head  of  Huntly,  who 
still  thought  that  his  best  plan  was  to  murder  Murray.  He  failed,  and 
died  at  Corrichie.  The  queen  wept  at  John  Gordon's  execution, 
which  was  cruelly  prolonged ;  wept,  doubtless  because  she  hated 
Murray  as  much  as  Huntly. ^*^  The  reader  may  now  understand 
the  value  of  Buchanan's  evidence.  A  tolerant  construction  of 
Mary's  conduct  makes  it  clear  that  she  was  equally  ready  to  win 
Huntly  to  murder  her  brother,  or  to  purchase  the  English  crown,  as 
Mr  Froude  says,  "  by  Huntly's  blood  "  !  ^^  For  it  is,  of  course,  im- 
possible that  she  merely  designed  the  overthrow  of  a  perfidious  and 
rebellious  kinglet  of  the  North.  If  Mary  "  stooped  to  folly  "  and 
worse,  we  must  remember  that  she  was  for  years  goaded  by  Prot- 
estant virulence,    which  turned   her  every  act   and  word  into  evil. 

The  truth  about  the  affair  of  Huntly  seems  to  be  this  :  Mary, 
under  Lethington  and  Mar  (Murray),  was  "running  the  English 
course."  The  great  House  of  Hamilton,  ever  ready  to  change  its 
creed,  was  hostile  to  her,  and  Huntly,  a  Catholic,  was  suspicious, 


NOTES.  121 

and  probably  was  intriguing  with  the  Hamiltons.  Murray  and 
Lethington  may  have  exaggerated  all  this,  and,  under  their  advice, 
Mary  swept  Huntly  from  her  path  of  reconciliation  with  England. 
Mary  knew  how  her  Catholic  friends  abroad  would  look  on  her 
conduct.  She  bade  her  uncle,  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  "make 
any  excuses  if  I  have  failed  in  any  part  of  my  duty  towards 
religion."  ^2  Her  letter  to  the  Due  de  Guise  on  the  whole  affair 
(January  31,  1563)  was  burned  in  a  fire  at  the  premises  of  the 
binder  to  the  British  Museum. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   V. 


^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  151,  152.  ^  Knox,  ii.  157-270. 

*  Hay  Fleming,  p.  257.  *  Knox,  ii.  270,  276.  *  Knox,  ii.  277-2S6. 
®  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  376-379,  note;  October  24,  25.     Bain,  Calendar,  i.  563. 

''  Diurnal,  p.  68. 

*  Randolph  to  Cecil,  September  7,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  287,  note. 

^  Randolph  to  Cecil,  September  24,  Keith,  ii.  85,  86.  ^^  Keith,  ii.  74. 

^^  Throckmorton  to  Cecil,  October  9,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  362  ;  Froude,  vi. 
525-527. 

^^  Knox,  ii.  289-290,  and  Laing's  notes,  and  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  352,  note. 

^^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  377,  note,  October  24,  Randolph  to  Cecil. 

'*  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  428,  December,  Randolph  to  Cecil;  Bain,  i.  573-580. 

^^  Knox,  vi.  133-135  ;  cf.  Hay  Fleming,  ii.  262,  263,  where  the  matter  is  fully 
discussed. 

^^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  379,  426-429,  December  7,  1561. 

^"  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  438. 

^8  Knox,  ii.  293,  294;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  426-428.  ^^  Knox,  ii.  294-310. 

'<•  Labanoff,  i.  123- 127.     The  letter  is  in  Scots. 

21  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv,  532,  537-539- 

^'  Knox,  ii.  322-327;  Randolph  to  Cecil,  March  31,  1562,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv. 
575'  576. 

^  Compare  Knox,  with  Randolph  to  Cecil,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  584-586,  628,  629. 

^  Froude,  vi.  563.  ^^  Buchanan,  fol.  204  (1582). 

^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  523,  February  12,  1562. 

It  is  at  this  period,  when  Mary  had  returned  from  St  Andrews,  that  Knox 
seems  to  date  his  sermon  against  her  dancing.  On  March  i  the  Huguenots  had 
insulted  the  Due  de  Guise  at  Vassy  while  at  his  prayers,  and  had  pelted  him  with 
stones.  His  men  cut  down  a  number  of  people  indiscriminatingly  before  they 
could  be  restrained.  Mr  Froude  says  that  Mary  gave  a  ball  on  the  day  when  the 
news  of  the  affair  of  Vassy  arrived.  Knox  says  that  she  "danced  excessively  .  .  . 
because  she  had  received  letters  that  persecution  had  begun  again  in  France."  But 
the  massacre  was  on  March  i,  and  Mary  does  not  seem  to  have  returned  from  Fife 
to  Edinburgh  before  the  19th  of  April,  or  even  the  beginning  of  May  (Hay  Flem- 


122  NOTES. 

ing,  p.  518;  Knox,  ii.  330,  note  7).  Consequently  the  news  of  Vassy  must  have 
reached  her  long  before,  and  she  did  not  dance  because  or  just  after  that  affair,  as 
Mr  Froude  thinks  (Froude,  vi.  547,  565).  Indeed  it  was  not  till  December  that 
Knox  preached  against  Mary's  amusements,  unless  he  did  so  twice  or  more,  which 
is  probable  enough.     His  dates  are  often  wrong. 

^  Raynaldi,  January  12,  1562,  No.  clxxxii. ;  Philippson,  ii.  39. 

2^  Gouda  to  Laynez,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  pp.  63-79,  September  30  ; 
Pollen,  Papal  Negotiations  with  Queen  Mary,  pp.  1 13-139. 

There  are  some  curious  points  in  Gouda's  report.  He  says  that  the  queen, 
addressing  Father  Edmund  Hay,  who  interpreted,  spoke  in  Scots.  He  observes 
that  even  her  confessor  had  left  her  :  there  is  a  persistent  rumour  that  Riccio, 
later,  was  her  confessor,  though  dressed  as  a  layman.  He  fully  confirms  the  Prot- 
estant account  of  the  profligacy  of  the  bishops.  "  I  will  not  describe  the  way  in 
which  those  prelates  live,  the  example  they  set,  or  the  sort  of  men  they  choose  as 
their  successors."  Knox  heard  of  Gouda's  coming,  and  raged  against  him.  Father 
Crichton  adds  that  the  preachers  said  "  it  would  be  a  noble  sacrifice  to  God  to 
wash  their  hands  in  Gouda's  blood."  Ninian  Winzet  went  to  Mayence  with 
Gouda,  or  perhaps  rather  earlier. 

^  Labanoff,  i.  175-180.  ^^  Knox,  ii.  283.  ^^  Froude,  vi.  510,  511. 

•'^  Compare  Hay  Fleming,  p.  269,  for  other  views. 

33  For,  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  529.  34  Yox.  Cal.  Eliz.,  iv.  608,  April  17. 

■^5  Teulet,  Papiers  d'Etat,  ii.  22.  36  Teulet,  ii.  29.  37  Keith,  ii.  148-153. 

3*  Labanoff,  i.  150-160.  39  Por.  Cal.  Eliz.,  v.  1S2. 

•*^  Randolph  to  Cecil,  July  8,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  v.  149.  "  Market-day"  seems  to 
lis  a  picturesque  traditional  accretion. 

*^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  v.  330,  September  30. 

*^  Hay  Fleming,  p.  301.  ^3  por.  Cal.  Eliz.,  v.  232. 

4^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  v.  273,  303,  304,  319,  329,  360,  361,  386,  399.421. 

■*»  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  v.  560.  ^  Knox,  ii.  347. 

■*''  Knox,  ii.  346-359.  ^  Froude,  vi.  606. 

■"^  Perhaps,  as  Father  Pollen  suggests,  Buchanan  is  mixing  up  these  events  with 
a  much  later  affair — the  Papal  subsidy  of  1566,  to  be  paid  if  Mary  slew  her  chief 
Pi  ivy  Council  men,  which  she  resolutely  refused  to  do  (Papal  Negotiations,  p.  Ix.) 

^'^  Buchanan,  foil.  205-209.  ^^  Froude,  vi.  614. 

^^  Pollen.  Negotiations,  Iviii.  163. 


123 


CHAPTER    VI. 

Mary's    marriage. 

1563-1565- 

During  INIary's  expedition  to  the  North  Elizabeth  had  been  ill  of 
smallpox.  She  had  written  to  Mary  explaining  that  the  Guise 
persecutions  in  France  had  caused  her,  if  not  to  make  war,  to 
undertake  "military  operations"  in  that  direction.  But  she 
believed  Mary's  heart  to  be  so  true  to  her  that  rivers  would 
remount  their  sources  ere  her  Mary  changed.  On  November  14 
Maitland  explained  to  Cecil  the  "  perplexed  case  "  of  Mary.  She 
loved  Elizabeth,  she  loved  her  uncles.  They  would  ask  her  to 
resume  the  old  league  "against  your  invasion."  If  she  refuses, 
she  loses  their  support ;  if  she  consents,  what  does  she  gain  from 
England,  above  all,  if  Elizabeth  dies  ?  Maitland  hears  rumours  of 
an  intention  to  cut  Mary  off  from  the  English  succession.  He 
asks  Cecil's  advice.  Randolph  (November  18)  wrote  that 
Chastelard  had  arrived,  a  gentleman  of  Damville's  suite,  with 
a  long  letter  from  his  master.  "  He  is  well  entertained,"  and  he 
gave  Mary  a  book  of  his  own  verses.^  Now  it  was,  in  December, 
and  not  in  spring,  that  Knox  preached  against  Mary  for  dancing, 
on  some  news,  he  says,  of  a  Guisian  success  in  France.  It  cannot 
have  been,  as  Mr  Froude  avers,  the  massacre  of  Vassy,  an  affair  of 
nine  months  old.  Randolph  mentions  the  dancing,  the  sermon, 
and  a  meeting  of  Mary  and  Knox  on  December  16  When  they 
met,  Mary  asked  him  to  remonstrate  with  her  in  private,  if  he  dis- 
liked her  doings,  not  to  attack  her  in  public.  Now,  what  she 
asked  was  her  bare  right.  The  Book  of  Discipline  enjoins  that 
"the  offender  ought  to  be  privately  admonished  to  abstain  from 
all  appearance  of  evil."  Knox  said  that  he  "  was  not  appointed  to 
come  to  every  man  in  particular  to  show  him  his  offence."     Then 


124  CHASTELARD. 

he  might  have  sent  an  elder :  ^  in  any  case  he  broke  the  rules  of 
his  own  Book  of  Discipline. 

Presently  rhymes  and  dances  led  Chastelard  to  his  notorious 
end.  Randolph  thought  that  Mary  was  too  famiUar  "with  so 
abject  a  varlet"  as  a  French  gentleman  and  poet.  Knox  says 
that  "  sometimes  privily  she  would  steal  a  kiss  from  his  neck," — 
an  indefensible  licence,  certainly,  like  Elizabeth's  tickling  the  neck 
of  her  Dudley  before  the  eyes  of  Melville.  On  the  night  of 
February  12,  1563,  Lethington  was  setting  forth  on  an  embassy 
to  Elizabeth.  He,  Murray,  and  two  others  sat  with  Mary  in  her 
boudoir  till  past  midnight.  Mary's  maidens  fell  asleep  in  her  bed- 
room, and  Chastelard  crept  in,  and  hid  where  burglars  are  usually 
looked  for  by  ladies.  Two  grooms  of  the  chamber  did  look,  and 
found  Chastelard.  Mary  ordered  him  away :  he  followed  her  to 
Fife,  and  entered  her  bed-chamber.  This  he  had  done  once  too 
often  :  he  was  executed  at  St  Andrews,  near  the  Whyte-Melville 
fountain  of  to-day,  on  February  22.  Of  his  behaviour  on  the 
scaffold  contending  accounts  are  given.  Lethington  told  de 
Quadra  that  French  people  of  rank  had  sent  Chastelard  to  try 
to  compromise  Mary.^  The  name  of  his  instigator  Lethington 
gave  as  Madame  de  Curosot ;  the  other  names  Mary  would  not 
allow  to  be  written.  Madame  de  Guise  gave  the  name  to  the 
Venetian  Ambassador  as  "Madame  de  Cursolles."*  Chantonnay 
gave  it  to  Philip  IL  as  "  Madame  de  Curosot."  ^  Curosot  is  the 
Spanish  cipher  name  for  Chatillon,  and  the  wife  of  the  Admiral 
Coligny  is  intended,  or  the  real  name  is  de  Cursol  or  Crusolles, 
later  Duchesse  d'Uzes.  Chastelard  was,  doubtless,  a  Huguenot, 
if  we  believe  Knox's  story  that  he  lamented  his  "  declining  from 
the  truth  of  God" — that  is,  Calvinism.  Knox  says  that  he  was 
executed  "  that  his  tongue  should  not  utter  the  secrets  of  our 
queen." ^  Mr  Froude  says  that  Maitland's  story  is  "an  incredible 
lie."^  Knox's  is  a  charitable  theory.  ~  If  we  believe  Randolph, 
Mary  had  herself  to  blame  for  the  fatuity  of  a  minor  poet.  But, 
from  Knox's  point  of  view,  so  experienced  a  Messalina  should  have 
managed  her  intrigues  more  adroitly. 

While  Mary  was  being  compromised  by  Chastelard,  Lethington 
was  on  his  way  to  London.  Knox  was  not  consulted,  as  of  old, 
about  his  mission,  and  did  not  know  its  nature,  as  he  tells  us. 
Lethington  was  to  negotiate  as  to  Mary's  succession,  in  London  : 
in  France  also  he  was  to  negotiate,  but  we  have  not  his  instructions 
for  his  French  mission.     In  England  he  was  to  find  out  the  result 


LETHTNGTON'S   MARRIAGE   DIPLOMACY    (1563).         I25 

of  the  recent  parliamentary  discussion  as  to  Elizabeth's  heir.  She 
had  refused  to  name  her  successor,  but  the  House  was  clearly  op- 
posed to  a  Catholic  claimant.  In  fact,  had  Elizabeth  gratified  the 
Scots  by  naming  their  queen,  Mary  would  have  needed  strong 
Catholic  backing.  That  she  could  only  receive  from  Spain,  hence 
arose  the  plan  managed  by  Lethington  for  wedding  her,  not  to  the 
Archduke,  but  to  Don  Carlos.  This  would  be  equally  unwelcome 
to  Elizabeth,  to  Catherine  de'  Medici,  and  to  Knox.  The  preachers, 
letting  politics  ooze  from  their  sermons  into  their  prayers,  implored 
the  Deity,  before  Lethington  had  reached  London,  "  to  keep  us 
from  the  bondage  of  strangers ;  and,  for  Mary,  as  much  in  effect 
as  that  God  will  either  turn  her  heart  or  send  her  short  life.  Of 
what  charity  or  spirit  this  proceedeth,  I  leave  to  be  discussed  unto 
the  great  divines,"  says  Randolph.^ 

From  London  (March  18)  de  Quadra,  the  Spanish  Ambassador, 
reported  Lethington's  ideas  to  Philip.  Lethington  said  that  he  had 
made  arrangement  with  Cecil,  the  old  arrangement :  Mary  was  to 
drop  her  claim  to  the  English  title  :  Elizabeth  was  to  acknowledge 
Mary.  But  then  had  come  Poltrot's  pistol-shot,  and  the  death  of 
the  Due  de  Guise.  With  the  fall  of  Mary's  most  powerful  friend, 
and  the  deaths  or  disasters  of  her  other  Lorraine  uncles,  the  agree- 
ment was  ended.  As  to  Mary's  marriage,  she  would  never  wed  a 
Protestant,  nor,  under  any  conditions,  marry  at  the  will  of  Eliza- 
beth. She  did  not  esteem  the  Archduke  Charles  of  Austria,  and,  in 
short,  aimed  at  the  hand  of  Don  Carlos.  Her  nobles  would  permit 
it,  in  the  national  interests,  and  the  English  Catholics  were  a  strong 
party.  Five  days  later,  Lethington  told  de  Quadra  that  Elizabeth 
proposed  Lord  Robert  Dudley,  her  minion,  for  Mary's  hand.  This 
was  a  deliberate  insult.  Dudley  was  the  worst  man  Cecil  knew : 
he  was  ready  to  adopt  any  creed  for  his  own  advancement :  a 
political  traitor,  with  a  pedigree  recent  and  disgraced,  and  with  a 
private  character  stained  by  his  wife's  death,  he  was  no  husband 
for  a  Stuart  queen.  Moreover,  it  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable 
that  Elizabeth  would  have  parted  from  the  object  of  her  enigmatic 
passion.  Such  a  proposal  could  only  have  come  from  an  irrecon- 
cilable woman.  De  Quadra  said  that  even  Mary's  own  subjects 
preferred  Lennox's  son,  Henry  Darnley.  Philip  of  Spain  lent 
himself  to  Lethington's  plan,  Lethington  having  persuaded  de 
Quadra  that  Mary  might  marry  the  King  of  France,  and  then, 
in  the  nick  of  time,  de  Quadra  died.  By  August  20,  Elizabeth, 
in  her  instructions  to  Randolph,  laid  her  interdict  on  the  marriage 


126  PERSECUTION    OF   CATHOLICS. 

with  the  Archduke  Charles  of  Austria,  or  with  any  Catholic 
Prince.^*' 

The  whole  of  these  negotiations  for  Mary's  marriage  were  an 
inextricable  tangle  of  duplicities.  The  Emperor  was  being  deceived 
as  to  Mary's  readiness  to  marry  the  Archduke.  Mary  was  to  be 
deceived  by  Elizabeth's  offer  of  Leicester.  De  Quadra  and  PhiHp 
were  gulled  by  Lethington  as  to  the  prospect  of  a  marriage  between 
Mary  and  Charles  IX.  of  France.  Finally,  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange,  on 
April  30,  1564,  wrote  to  Randolph  that  there  was  no  sincerity  even 
in  Lethington's  attempt  to  arrange  the  Spanish  marriage  for  Mary, 
a  thing  so  detestable  to  Protestants.  "  The  queen-mother  hath 
written  to  our  queen,  that  Lethington  said  to  her,  that  all  that  was 
spoken  of  the  marriage  with  Spain  was  done  to  cause  England  grant 
to  our  desires," — namely,  to  recognise  Mary  as  EHzabeth's  suc- 
cessor.^^ Now  Lethington  may  have  said  this  to  deceive  Catherine, 
or,  conceivably,  what  he  said  was  true,  and  he  was  gulling  Philip 
and  de  Quadra  by  two  separate  and  simultaneous  impostures. 
Lethington  was  "  very  capable  of  having  it  happen  to  him,"  and 
was  an  edifying  Minister  of  a  young  queen. 

In  criticising  Mary's  conduct  henceforth,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  her  high  spirit  was  being  fretted  by  rebuke,  menace,  and  inter- 
ference from  every  side.  The  loves  of  monarchs  are  always  thwarted 
and  controlled :  it  is  a  sore  price  that  they  pay  for  their  thorny 
crowns.  No  doubt  they  should  pay  it  dutifully.  But  a  beautiful 
high-born  girl  of  twenty-one  is  apt  to  resent  an  eternity  of  threats  and 
lectures.  At  Easter  the  Archbishop  and  others  had  celebrated  the 
rites  of  her  faith,  and  the  Brethren  avowed  their  intention  to  take  the 
law  into  their  own  hands.  Some  priests  were  seized.  They  had 
been  ministering  to  their  flocks,  "  some  in  secret  houses,  some  in 
barns,  others  in  woods  and  hills."  They  were  imprisoned.^"  Some 
priests,  as  Quentin  Kennedy,  were  threatened  with  lynch  law.  Mary 
sent  for  Knox,  who  met  her  at  Lochleven.  He  quoted  Samuel  and 
Agag  :  Agag  was  the  Archbishop,  Knox  was  Samuel.  "  Phyneas 
was  no  magistrat,  and  yet  feared  he  not  to  stryck  Cosby  and  Zimbrye 
in  the  verray  act  of  fylthie  fornicatioun."  Knox  himself  had  just  sat 
on  the  preacher  Paul  Methven,  who  had  an  ancient  woman  to  wife, 
and  a  young  maid-servant.  Paul  was  excommunicated  but  not  put 
to  death.  Mary  left  Knox,  somewhat  offended,  but  next  morning 
talked  to  him  of  other  matters.  She  said  that  Ruthven  was  "  known 
to  use  enchantment,"  and  had  given  her  a  ring,  which  she  thought 


"GOD   SAVE   THAT   SWEET   FACE!"  1 27 

ominous.  Lethington  had  placed  Ruthven  on  the  Privy  Council : 
Mary  resented  this,  and  Randolph  tells  Cecil  that  Murray  dreaded 
Ruthven's  sorcery.^^  Mary  next  warned  Knox  against  allowing 
Gordon,  later  Bishop  of  Galloway,  to  be  elected  superintendent. 
Knox  said  that  God  would  not  suffer  His  Church  to  be  deceived. 
But,  in  fact,  Gordon  had  bribed  several  of  the  electors,  as  Knox 
later  found  out.  Gordon,  none  the  less,  continued  to  "plant  and 
visit  the  churches  of  that  diocese."^*  So  early  was  the  primitive 
simplicity  of  the  Kirk  invaded  by  "  horrid  facts,"  as  Knox  calls 
Methven's  offence.  Lastly,  Mary  asked  Knox  to  reconcile  Argyll 
and  his  wife,  and  promised  to  do  some  justice  on  the  prelates  of  her 
own  Church.  They  parted  peaceably,  and  tradition  says  that  the 
queen  gave  Knox  a  beautiful  watch. 

On  May  26  Parliament  met.  The  corpse  of  Huntly  and  the  living 
Sutherland,  as  involved  in  his  treason,  were  condemned.  Mary,  of 
course,  wore  her  robes,  other  ladies  were  in  their  best,  and  the 
preachers  spoke  boldly  against  "the  targeting  of  their  tails,"  "the 
stinking  pride  of  women."  The  people,  however,  cried,  "God  save 
that  sweet  face  ! "  Alas,  for  the  sweet  face,  and  for  the  girl  who, 
weekly  and  daily,  was  thwarted  and  denounced  from  the  infallible 
pulpit !  From  the  rites  of  her  creed  to  the  dances  of  her  drawing- 
room  ;  from  the  trimming  of  her  skirt  to  the  bestowal  of  her 
hand,  Mary  was  eternally  checked  and  scolded.  Recklessness  was 
the  necessary  result,  and  when  recklessness  met  passion,  we  may  and 
do  condemn,  but  we  cannot  affect  not  to  understand  the  results. 
Before  Parliament  met,  on  May  26,  measures  were  taken  against  the 
Catholics.  The  Archbishop  and  others  were  imprisoned  for  doing 
what  it  was  their  duty,  and  their  point  of  honour,  to  have  done. 
During  the  session  the  preaching  party  won  some  legislative  triumphs. 
The  penalty  of  death  was  decreed  against  breakers  of  the  Seventh 
Commandment.  Christ's  leniency  to  the  sinful  woman  did  not  com- 
mend itself  to  the  Reformers.  The  penalty  of  death  was  also  decreed 
against  witches,  and  this  abominable  law  was  carried  into  effect  fre- 
quently, for  four  generations,  both  under  Presbyterianism  and  Epis- 
copacy. Manses  and  glebes  were  to  be  restored  to  the  ministers, 
and  a  reforming  commission  was  to  inspect  the  University  of  St 
Andrews.  Parish  kirks  were  to  be  repaired,  and  cruives  or  coops, 
and  other  traps  for  salmon,  were  condemned. ^^ 

Knox  preached  against  the  backsliding  lords.  Had  not  God's 
Spirit  in  Knox  promised  them  victory.      Had  he  not  prophesied 


128  KNOX  AVOOES   A   YOUNG   LASS. 

their  success  when  he  stood  by  them  in  their  "  most  extreme 
dangers,"  at  Perth,  at  Cupar  Moor  (where  they  were  in  over- 
whelming numbers),  and  on  "the  dark  and  dolorous  night,  wherein 
ye  all,  my  Lords,  with  shame  and  fear,  fled  from  this  town."  It 
was  all  true  ;  Knox  had  been  the  heart  of  the  wars  of  the  Con- 
gregation. But  for  him  they  would  have  quailed  and  scattered 
before  the  Regent.  And  now,  again,  they  were  "fleeing  from 
Christ's  banner."  Their  very  religion,  some  said,  was  not  estab- 
lished by  a  lawful  Parliament  (as  it  emphatically  was  not).  This 
was  the  opinion  of  Sinclair,  Dean  of  Restalrig,  and  as  he  afterwards 
rose  to  the  highest  judicial  rank  as  Lord  President,  his  opinion  is 
worth  noting.  "To  end  all"  of  his  harangue,  Knox  turned  to 
the  queen's  marriage.  He  knew,  or  guessed,  as  Randolph  had 
done  months  before,  that  Don  Carlos  was  to  be  the  man.  "  Duckis, 
brethren  to  Emperouris  and  Kingis,  strive  for  all  the  best  game ;  but 
this,  my  Lordis,  will  I  say  (note  the  day  and  beare  witnesse  after), 
whensoever  the  Nobilitie  of  Scotland,  professing  the  Lord  Jesus, 
consentis  that  ane  infidell  (and  all  papistis  are  infidellis)  shalbe  head 
to  your  Soverane,  ye  do  so  far  as  in  ye  lyeth  to  banishe  Christe  Jesus 
from  this  Realme."  "These  words,  and  this  manner  of  speaking, 
were  deemed  intolerable  "  by  all  parties,  says  Knox,  and,  for  a  year 
and  a-half,  he  and  Murray  were  not  on  speaking  terms.  The  sermon, 
says  Mr  Froude,  "  contained  but  a  plain  poUtical  truth  of  which 
Knox  happened  to  be  the  exponent."  The  political  truth  is  that 
recognised  in  our  present  constitution.  A  Protestant  realm  must 
have  a  Protestant  on  the  throne.  But  was  it  necessary  to  say  that 
"  all  Papists  are  infidels  "  ?  And  is  not  the  danger  to  liberty  from 
"  inspired  "  pulpiteers  as  great  as  that  from  a  Catholic  prince  ?  Mary 
was  informed  of  Knox's  sermon.  She  sent  for  him ;  he  was  accom- 
panied by  Lord  Ochiltrie,  whose  daughter  he  was  courting.  In 
January  Randolph  had  written  that  "  Mr  Knox  shall  marry  a  very 
near  kinswoman  of  the  Duke's  (Chatelherault),  "  a  lord's  daughter, 
a  young  lass  not  above  sixteen  years  of  age."  "  Ochiltrie,"  says  Mr 
Hume  Brown,  "  was  a  person  of  little  standing  or  consequence." 
He  was  of  the  royal  blood  and  name,  near  akin  to  Chatelherault, 
and  sat  in  the  Privy  Council.  The  disparity  of  rank  between  the 
lovers  was  as  great  as  the  disparity  of  age,  Knox  being  about  fifty- 
nine.  Catholic  pasquils  accused  him  of  winning  the  girl's  heart  by 
sorcery.  This  may  imply  that  she  was  not  constrained  in  her  choice, 
but  was  honestly  in  love  with  the  Reformer.     After  his  death  she 


ELIZABETH    PROPOSES   THE   RETURN   OF   LENNOX.       1 29 

married  one  of  the  leading  ruffians  of  the  age,  Andrew  Ker  of 
Faldonside  on  Tweed. 

Secure  in  his  passion  for  a  still  younger  beauty  than  his  queen, 
Knox  was  doubly  safe  from  the  enchantments  of  Mary.  In  their 
interview  the  "owling"  of  the  queen  ("howling"  is  meant)  pro- 
duced no  effect  on  Knox,  Mary  asked,  as  before,  why,  if  he 
must  admonish  her,  he  could  not  do  so  in  private,  the  rule  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline.  As  to  her  "  owling,"  Knox  said,  "  I 
never  delighted  in  the  weeping  of  any  of  God's  creatures  ;  yea,  I 
can  scarcely  well  abide  the  tears  of  my  own  boys,  whom  my  own 
hand  corrects,  much  less  can  I  rejoice  in  your  majesty's  weep- 
ing." His  right  to  interfere  was  that  of  "a  subject  born"  within 
the  commonwealth.  As  there  was  then  no  newspaper  press,  and 
no  "  platform,"  the  pulpit  alone  was  the  place  where  ordinary 
subjects  could  vent  their  ideas.  Unhappily  they  claimed  to  be 
inspired,  and  hence  arose  the  later  war  of  Kirk  and  State.  As 
to  Don  Carlos,  if  we  believe  Knox,  Lethington,  returning  in  June, 
denied  that  Mary  had  ever  dreamed  of  him  for  a  husband.  In 
England,  Knox  tells  us,  Lethington  worked  to  release  Bothwell, 
who,  some  time  after  his  flight  in  1562,  had  been  caught  at  sea 
and  held  a  prisoner.  According  to  Randolph,  Bothwell  had 
several  times  tried  to  murder  Lethington  :  even  now  Randolph 
thought  Mary  too  lenient  to  Bothwell.  But  his  imprisonment, 
however  deserved,  had  been  unjust :  there  was  no  evidence  against 
him  except  Arran's  word,  and  Arran  was  more  or  less  insane. 
Elizabeth  had  even  less  right  to  detain  him.  At  Mary's  request 
he  was  released  early  in  1564,  and  joined  the  Scots  Guard  in 
France.  Knox  adds  that  Lethington  had  been  labouring  for  the 
return  of  Lennox.  He  had  certainly  opposed  Lennox's  claims  to 
rank  before  Chatelherault,  and  his  theory  of  the  illegitimacy  of 
the  head  of  the  Hamiltons. 

Whatever  part  Lethington  played,  on  June  16  EUzabeth  re- 
quested ]\Iary  to  consider  the  pleas  of  Lennox  and  his  wife  for 
restoration  to  their  legal  status  in  Scotland.^^  Lady  Lennox  was 
daughter  and  heiress  of  Angus;  Lennox,  before  he  turned  English- 
man and  was  forfeited  in  1543,  held  the  Castle  of  Dumbarton. 
The  Hamiltons  had  entered  on  a  great  share  of  the  Lennox 
properties.  The  return  of  Lennox  to  Scotland  boded  no  peace, 
and  Elizabeth  had  once  before  told  him  that  his  pleas  were  but 
"colour  for  a  higher  feather,"  the  marriage  of  his  son,   Darnley, 

VOL    II.  I 


I30  KNOX   "CONVOCATES   THE   LIEGES." 

to  Mary.  In  July  Randolph,  instead  of  accompanying  Mary  to 
the  Highlands  in  a  kilt,  as  he  had  intended  to  do,  was  recalled 
to  the  English  Court.  On  August  20  he  received,  as  we  have 
already  said,  the  instructions  of  Elizabeth.  He  was  to  threaten 
breach  of  amity  if  an  imperial  marriage  was  designed,  and  to 
hint,  as  from  himself,  that  Elizabeth  would  resign  to  her  Dudley, 
—  ^'' such  an  one  as  she  would  hardly  think  we  could  agree  unto" 
wrote  Elizabeth  with  her  own  hand.  This  marriage  would 
"further  Mary's  interest,  if  so  she  should  appear  that  she  be 
our  next  heir."  ^^  For  many  months  Mary  was  held  in  the  toils 
of  this  absurd,  insulting,  evasive  proposal.  Elizabeth  merely 
wished  to  gain  time,  and  to  pose  to  herself  as  the  heroine  of 
a  novel  of  self-sacrifice.  Thus  she  fretted  Mary  into  her  fatal 
step,  the  ruinous  marriage  with  Darnley.  Even  Murray  faintly 
resented  the  interferences  of  Elizabeth. ^^  Knox  wrote  to  Cecil  in 
distress.  Nine  out  of  twelve  of  the  Council  would  accept  Mary's 
desires.  If  Murray  remained  staunch,  then  there  was  hope ;  Mary 
was  "born  to  be  a  plague  to  the  realm,"  she  and  her  "inordinate 
desires."  On  the  same  day  Knox  wrote  to  Dudley  (October  6). 
Either  Knox  was  a  man  of  wonderful  simplicity,  or  he  took  the 
most  roseate  view  of  Dudley's  character  by  design.  He  suggested  a 
hope  that  this  wretched  minion  might  "  walk  in  that  straight  path 
that  leadeth  to  life."  He  hoped  that  Dudley,  who  was  ready  to 
sell  himself  to  Spain,  would  "  advance  purity  of  religion."  ^^ 

At  the  same  time  (October  9)  Knox  took  a  step  which 
was  bold,  but  proved  safe.  In  these  evil  days  he  had  little 
to  comfort  him  except  the  burning  of  two  witches.^''  But,  in 
Mary's  absence  at  Stirling,  the  mass  was  attended  by  Catholics 
at  Holyrood,  in  contravention  of  the  arrangement  permitting  it 
only  where  she  was  at  the  time.  Some  of  the  godly  were  de- 
puted to  spy  on  the  Catholics  and  note  their  names.  There  was 
brawling  in  the  chapel.  Armstrong  and  Cranstoun,  the  offenders, 
were  committed  for  trial.  Knox,  therefore,  was  commissioned  by 
the  local  Brethren  to  write  for  aid  to  the  godly  everywhere. 
Masses,  he  said,  were  openly  maintained.  "  The  blood  of  some 
of  our  dearest  ministers  has  been  shed  without  fear  of  punishment 
or  correction  craved  by  us,"  apparently  in  private  feud.  And 
now  Cranstoun  and  Armstrong  are  under  charge  of  intended 
murder  and  invading  the  palace.  He  convocated  the  godly  to 
Edinburgh  for  the  day  of  the  trial.^^     Murray  and  Lethington  in 


WAR  OF   KIRK  AND   STATE    (1563).  13I 

vain  pointed  out  to  Knox  the  nature  of  his  act.  He  was  resol- 
ute :  he  appeared  before  the  Court  attended  by  a  vast  crowd. 
Mary  laughed,  Knox  says,  and  promised  to  repay  him  for  mak- 
ing her  weep.  She  was  foiled,  and  "  the  rigid  mmister  prevailed." 
Knox  browbeat  the  Council  and  judges,  who,  of  course,  had  pre- 
ceded him  in  convoking  unlawful  assemblies.  He  was  unanimously 
acquitted,  though  if  it  was  illegal  to  assemble  a  multitude  to  over- 
awe justice,  he  ought  to  have  been  condemned.  Mary  asked 
whether  "  to  make  convocation  of  her  lieges  was  not  treason  ? '' 
Ruthven,  whom  "all  men  hated,"  says  Randolph,  observed,  "Nay, 
for  he  makes  convocation  of  the  people  to  hear  prayer  and  ser- 
mon almost  daily,  ...  we  think  it  no  treason."  Mary  brushed 
the  slender  sophistry  away.  Knox  maintained  that  what  he  had 
done  "  I  have  done  at  the  commandment  of  the  general  Kirk  of 
this  realm."  As  Mr  Hume  Brown  writes,  Knox  acted  "with  the 
consent  of  the  faithful  in  Edinburgh,  though  probably  on  his  own 
initiative."  ^^  Knox  himself  tells  us  that  he  had  a  general  charge 
"  to  make  advertisement  whenever  danger  should  appear."  ^^  The 
"general  Kirk"  had  no  more  legal  right  than  the  members  of  any 
other  "  band  "  to  convocate  the  lieges  and  overawe  justice.  It  was 
against  this  practice  of  theirs  that  Mary's  son,  James  VI.,  had  to 
fight  so  long  and  sore  a  battle.  But  the  Council  had  been,  and 
again  might  be,  in  the  same  case  as  Knox.  Thus  the  Kirk  won  a 
great  triumph  over  the  State,  and  appeared  as  imperium  in  imperio. 
To  modern  minds  it  seems  that  the  Council  should  have  committed 
Knox,  while  the  judges  of  Cranstoun  and  Armstrong  might  have 
acquitted  them,  as  they  had  merely  disturbed  an  assembly  not 
lawful  in  the  eye  of  the  law  which  prohibited  the  mass.  A 
General  Assembly  supported  Knox  and  ratified  his  behaviour. 
The  antagonism  of  Kirk  and  State  and  the  right  of  the  Kirk 
to  call  men  to  arms  were  thus  proclaimed  :  nor  was  the  condi- 
tion of  things  much  improved,  in  essentials,  till  the  Revolution 
of  168S. 

At  this  date  (December  21)  Randolph  mentions  a  domestic  in- 
cident which  yet  lives  in  poetry.  The  queen's  French  apothecary 
had  an  intrigue  with  a  French  maid  of  the  queen's,  and  administered 
drugs  to  obviate  the  results.  Both  of  the  guilty  pair  were  hanged. 
This  is  the  basis  of  the  famous  ballad  of  "  The  Queen's  Maries,"  or 
*'  Mary  Hamilton."  No  Mary  was  of  the  Hamilton  House :  no 
Mary,  of  course,  fell  into  this  disgrace  and  doom.-'*     Knox  gives 


132  TYRANNY   OF    PULPITEERS    (1564). 

a  version  different  from  that  of  Randolph,  and  alludes  to  "the 
ballads  of  that  age."  He  also  avers  that  "  shame  hasted  mar- 
riage between  John  Sempill  and  Mary  Livingstone,"  one  of  the 
queen's  Maries.  Dates  appear  to  confute  this  allegation.  Ran- 
dolph, on  January  9,  1564,  mentions  the  wedding  as  to  be 
celebrated  between  this  and  Shrovetide  1564,  and  on  February 
19  expects  the  nuptials  in  about  a  week.  On  January  9  Bed- 
ford was  being  invited  to  the  bridal,^^  which  was  celebrated  on 
March  4,  1565.^^  Obviously  there  was  no  violent  hurry,  and 
it  is  necessary  to  be  watchful  in  accepting  Knox's  anecdotes. 
Mary  granted  lands  to  the  bride  and  bridegroom  on  March  9, 
1564.^''  The  irritation  of  the  Deity  declared  itself  in  "wet  in 
great  abundance,"  which  fell  on  January  20,  and  froze.  There 
were  also  "  seen  in  the  firmament  battles  arrayed,  spears  and 
other  weapons.  .  .  .  But  the  queen  and  our  Court  made  merry,'' 
says  Knox,  though  rain  and  an  aurora  borealis  occurred  in  mid- 
winter. And  yet  the  preachers  were  doing  their  duty.  For  a 
lapse  from  chastity  "  the  Lord  Treasurer,  on  Sunday  next,  must 
do  penance  before  the  whole  congregation,  and  Mr  Knox  make 
the  sermon."  -^ 

Of  far  more  real  historical  importance  than  the  intrigues  as 
to  Mary's  marriage  was  the  tyranny  of  the  pulpiteers.  The  rift 
between  them  and  the  Council  grew  daily  wider  as  the  General 
Assembly  of  June  drew  near.  "  The  threitnyngis  of  the  pre- 
chouris  wer  feirfull,"  writes  Knox  in  an  orthography  which  takes 
nothing  from  the  terror.  The  daily  menaces,  bellowed  in  sermon 
or  breathed  in  prayer,  hampered  a  Government  which  had  to 
deal  with  statesmen  of  this  world.  In  England  Elizabeth, 
from  her  seat,  bade  a  preacher  be  silent  when  his  remarks  dis- 
pleased her.  In  Scotland  statesmen  dared  not  face  the  preachers 
openly,  and  fight  out  once  for  all  the  battle  of  secular  freedom. 
Lethington  ventured  to  say  that  "  men  know  not  what  they  speak 
when  they  call  the  mass  idolatry."  Knox  in  the  pulpit  prophesied 
evil  for  Lethington,  and  lived  to  see  his  ruin.  Meanwhile  Lething- 
ton smiled ;  "  we  must  recant,  and  burn  our  bill,  for  the  preachers 
are  angry."  At  the  General  Assembly  Argyll,  Murray,  Morton, 
Glencairn,  the  Earl  Marischal,  and  Rothes  held  aloof  from  the 
Brethren,  as  did  even  the  faithful  laird  of  Pitarro,  Wishart.  A 
debate  was  held,  in  which  Lethington  ironically  advised  Knox  to 
"moderate  himself"  in  his   political   prayers,  which,  as   Randolph 


DUDLEY   PROPOSED   FOR   MARY'S   HAND.  1 33 

has  shown  us,  were  rather  in  the  nature  of  curses.  "  Others  may 
imitate  the  h'ke  hberty,  albeit  not  with  the  same  modesty  and  fore- 
sight." An  argument  followed,  which  Knox  reports  in  thirty-six 
pages,  the  last  pages  of  the  History  which  he  certainly  wrote  him- 
self. (The  Fifth  Book,  Laing  thought,  "has  been  chiefly  derived 
from  Knox's  papers  by  some  unknown  hand.")  It  is  needless 
to  dwell  on  a  controversy  in  which  Lethington  had  to  fight  for 
modern  freedom  from  clerical  dictation  on  a  field  composed  of  texts 
chosen  from  the  sacred  books  of  an  ancient  oriental  "  peculiar 
people."  Lethington  thought  that  no  contemporary  of  his  own 
had  a  right  to  imitate  Jehu,  and  kill  people  whom  Knox  called 
"  idolaters."  Knox,  of  course,  was  of  the  opposite  opinion,  Leth- 
ington forgot  to  counter  Knox  with  Hosea's  denunciation  of  Jehu 
and  his'  crime.  In  the  long  discussion,  of  course,  neither  party 
converted  the  other.  "  In  all  that  time  the  Earl  of  Moray  was 
so  estranged  from  John  Knox  that  neither  by  word  or  letter 
was  there  any  communication  between  them." 

Meanwhile,  as  regarded  Mary's  marriage,  Randolph  found 
abundant  goodwill,  but  no  advance  in  business.  His  difficulties 
were  caused  by  Elizabeth.  First,  she  wanted  Mary  to  marry  in- 
finitely below  her  rank ;  next,  to  marry  a  man  known  to  be  in  love 
with  herself.  "  The  world  would  judge  worse  of  him "  (Dudley) 
"  than  of  any  living  man,  if  he  should  not  rather  lose  his  life  than 
alter  his  thought."  ^^  Finally,  Mary  had  no  assurance  of  any  reward 
if  she  did  marry  Elizabeth's  favourite.  Murray  and  Lethington 
even  put  forward  Darnley,  though  not  with  conviction.  Knox 
had  suspected  Mary  because  she  kept  no  garrison  on  Inchkeith. 
Randolph  suspected  her  because  she  introduced  a  garrison. ^^  On 
March  30  Randolph  at  last  explicitly  named  Dudley  as  Elizabeth's 
choice  for  Mary.  "  Is  that,"  said  Mary,  "  in  conformity  with  her 
promise  to  use  me  as  her  sister  or  daughter  ?  "  What  did  Mary  take 
by  it,  if  Elizabeth  had  children  ?  On  April  30  Kirkcaldy  warned 
Randolph  that  Lennox  was  coming  to  Scotland,  and  that  Mary 
might  bring  Bothwell  back  "  to  shake  out  of  her  pocket  against 
us  Protestants."^^  As  for  "Lennox,  on  June  16,  1563,  Elizabeth 
had  requested  Mary,  as  we  saw,  to  consider  the  several  suits  of 
Lennox  and  his  wife.  By  May  22,  1564,  Randolph  announced 
that  Lennox  was  coming  to  "  sue  his  own  right "  as  to  his  Scottish 
lands.  Yet  Elizabeth,  as  Dr  Hay  Fleming  says,  "was  ignoble 
enough  to  suggest  that  Mary  should  take  the  blame  by  withdrawing 


134  ELIZABETH   OPPOSES   LENNOX'S   COMING. 

that  permission  "  (for  Lennox  to  visit  Scotland)  "which  at  her  desire 
she  had  granted."  ^- 

Mary's  Council  had  meanwhile  determined  that  she  should  not 
meet  Elizabeth  this  year.  Mary,  says  Randolph,  felt  "  sorrow  and 
grief"  (June  5).  Randolph  returned  to  England  in  June,  and 
Lethington  complained  to  Cecil  of  English  delays  and  want  of 
frankness  (June  23).  Murray  told  Cecil  that  he  had  not  opposed 
Lennox's  home-coming,  that  his  arrival  bred  no  fears  for  religion, 
that  the  Protestants  enjoyed  "  liberty  of  conscience  in  such  abund- 
ance as  our  hearts  can  wish,"  and  that  Mary  could  not  in  honour 
prevent  what  she  had  granted  at  Elizabeth's  request.  If  Elizabeth 
objects,  let  her  refuse  permission  to  Lennox.^^  The  truth  is  that  on 
May  3  Knox  had  warned  Randolph  against  permitting  Lennox  and 
Darnley  to  come  back.  "  Her  wanton  and  wicked  will  rules  all."  ^* 
On  this  hint  Cecil  told  Lethington  that  the  Scottish  friends  of  Eng- 
land "  like  not  Lennox's  coming."  "  I  cannot  tell  whom  you  take 
to  be  your  best  friends,"  answered  Lethington,  but  he  and  Murray 
had  been  England's  allies,  and  they  have  rather  furthered  than 
hindered  the  arrival  of  Lennox.  If  Elizabeth  objects,  Lethington 
is  amazed,  "  seeing  how  earnestly  her  majesty  did  recommend 
unto  me  my  Lord  of  Lennox's  cause."  Lethington  then,  by  Cecil's 
desire,  returned  to  him  his  own  letter,  containing  Elizabeth's  request 
for  the  refusal  of  permission  to  Lennox  to  enter  Scotland.  i\Iary 
replied  with  equal  spirit,  and  thereby  vexed  Elizabeth.  That  incon- 
stant woman  was  so  entangled  in  her  own  nets  that,  according  to 
Mr  Froude,  she  was  "harassed  into  illness,  and  in  the  last  stage 
of  despair."  In  point  of  fact,  it  was  not  Elizabeth  but. Cecil  that 
was  ill  when  the  queen  wrote  to  him,  in  Latin,  asking  him  to 
find  "  some  good  excuse  "  ("  something  kind  "  Mr  Froude  renders 
aliquid  boni)  "to  be  inserted  in  Randolph's  despatches."  ^^ 

In  September,  after  returning  from  a  northern  progress,  Mary 
sent  Sir  James  Melville  to  the  English  Court.  The  knight  tells 
the  tale,  in  memoirs  written  long  after  the  event,  and  not  too 
trustworthy.  Murray  and  Lethington  were  still  resolute  as  to 
Lennox's  visit.  It  was  by  Ehzabeth's  wish,  and  they  would  not 
waver  with  her  waverings.  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange  wrote  very  frankly 
to  Cecil  about  the  Dudley  marriage.  "  If  you  drive  time,  I  fear 
necessity  may  compel  us  to  marry  where  we  may.  .  .  .  Ye  may 
cause  us  take  the  Lord  Darnley"  (September  9).  Melville  went 
to  Court,  and  his  Memoirs  contain  a  lively  account  of  his  strange 


ELIZABETH   CAUSES   "STRANGE   TRAGEDIES."  I  35 

experiences.  Every  one  knows  how,  when  Elizabeth  created  Dudley 
Earl  of  Leicester,  she  "tickled  him  smilingly  on  the  neck."  Every 
one  has  heard  of  Elizabeth's  efforts  to  extract  compliments  at  Mary's 
expense,  and  how  she  danced  "high  and  disposedly,"  and  called 
Darnley  "yonder  long  lad,"  "beardless  and  lady-faced,"  says  Mel- 
ville, Melville,  in  fact,  had  a  secret  commission  to  secure  Darnley's 
presence  in  Scotland.  On  his  return  he  did  not  conceal  from  Mary 
that  Elizabeth  was  utterly  insincere  :  offered  Leicester,  but  would 
never  part  with  him.  But  to  offer  Leicester  was  Randolph,  with 
Bedford,  now  authorised.^*^  The  vaguest  references  were  made  to 
Mary's  recognition  as  Elizabeth's  heir.  The  absurd,  if  not  im- 
moral, proposal  of  a  menage  a  trois,  Leicester  and  Mary  to  live 
with  Elizabeth,  was  actually  hazarded. 

From  this  point  the  diplomacy  is  so  prolix  and  entangled  that 
only  the  most  important  facts  can  be  noted.  Throughout,  the 
object  of  Elizabeth  was  to  "drive  time"  and  to  perplex.  Till 
March  in  1565  Murray  and  Lethington  seem  to  have  sided  with 
their  mistress.  Lethington's  one  object,  pursued  with  a  passion 
strange  in  the  man,  was  the  union  of  Scotland  and  England. 
To  have  secured  this,  he  says,  will  bring  as  much  honour  as  was 
won  by  the  men  who  fought  beside  Bruce  for  freedom.  But  he 
was  to  be  foiled  by  the  cunning  of  Elizabeth ;  by  her  passion 
for  Leicester,  whom  she  was  pretending  to  offer  to  Mary ;  by  the 
appearance  (which  Cecil,  Leicester,  and  Elizabeth  procured)  of 
Darnley  in  Scotland ;  by  the  consequent  revival  of  the  Lennox 
and  Hamilton  feud  ;  by  a  new  feud  raised  between  Murray  and 
Darnley ;  and  by  the  sleepless  opposition  of  the  godly.  From  all 
these  causes,  aided  by  Mary's  sudden  caprice  for  Darnley,  and  by 
Elizabeth's  opposition  to  the  Darnley  as  to  all  other  marriages, 
the  amity  between  England  and  Scotland  was  broken,  and  the 
wars  of  the  Congregation  began  again,  as  before,  under  the  sanc- 
tion and  with  the  aid  of  Elizabeth.  On  her  lies  the  first  blame  : 
she  had  at  last  broken  down  the  self-restraint  and  aroused  the 
temper  of  Mary.  Then  followed  the  "  strange  tragedies "  which 
Lethington  had  predicted.  These  are  the  chief  circumstances 
and  influences  in  the  space  between  October  1564  and  Mary's 
resolution  to  marry  Darnley,  announced  in  April   1565. 

To  follow  events  more  closely,  Lennox's  restoration  was  publicly 
proclaimed  at  Edinburgh  Cross  on  October  13.  Since  1543 
Lennox    had    been    "  English."     His    wife,    daughter  of   Margaret 


136  THE    ENGLISH    SEND    DARNLEY. 

Tudor,  was  as  mischievous  an  intriguer  as  ever  her  mother  had 
been.  She,  doubtless,  was  a  Cathohc,  and  many  of  Lennox's  men 
went  to  mass  in  Edinburgh. ^'^  But  Lennox  himself  went  to  "  the 
preaching  place,"  so  did  Darnley ;  their  religion,  like  that  of  Prince 
Charlie,  "  was  still  to  seek."  Nevertheless,  their  party  in  England 
was  the  party  of  the  Catholics.^^  On  October  24  Randolph  found 
that  "many  desired  to  have  Darnley  here."  Yet  (November  3)  he 
did  not  find  that  Mary  and  Lethington  shared  this  wish.  Chatel- 
herault  was  in  despair  now  that  his  hereditary  foe,  Lennox,  was  in 
favour,  and  had  no  hope  save  in  Elizabeth.  A  secret  meeting  at 
Berwick  between  Murray  and  Lethington,  Randolph  and  Bedford, 
was  arranged,  but  led  to  nothing.  A  little  explosion  of  bad  temper 
took  place:  nothing  was  advanced.  Randolph  (December  2)  \vas 
opposed  to  the  coming  of  Darnley,  which  was  earnestly  pushed  by 
Leicester  and  Cecil,  of  course  with  Elizabeth's  concurrence.^^  The 
coming  was  not  yet,  not  till  February  1565.  What  was  Elizabeth's 
motive  ?  Probably  the  same  as  that  of  Leicester — namely,  that 
Darnley  might  captivate  Mary,  and  render  nugatory  the  self-sacrifice 
which  Elizabeth  had  promised,  the  parting  from  her  minion.  Mr 
Froude  writes  as  if  Darnley  was  barely  allowed  to  come,  in  con- 
sequence of  hopes  held  out  by  Mary  to  Randolph  that  she  would 
be  obedient  to  Elizabeth.  But  this  was  on  February  6,  1565. 
Now  Darnley  reached  Berwick  by  February  10.  From  a  letter  of 
Cecil's,  written  on  February  5,  Randolph  "perceived  what  earnest 
means  have  been  made  both  by  Leicester  and  your  honour  for 
Darnley's  licence  to  come  to  Scotland,"  a  licence  which  he  thought 
fatal  to  his  mission.  "How  to  frame  this  that  it  may  be  both  to 
her  majesty's  honour  and  thorough  contentment  in  the  end,  I  must 
take  one  care  more  upon  me,  .  .  .  which  must  be  supported  by 
your  honour's  good  advice,  for  truly  of  myself  I  know  not  yet  what 
to  think,  or  how  to  behave  myself"  (February  12,  1565).*° 

Now  Mr  Froude  argues  that  on  February  6  "  Randolph  wrote 
to  Leicester  as  if  there  was  no  longer  any  doubt  that  he  would 
be  accepted.  .  .  .  Elizabeth  permitted  herself  to  be  persuaded 
that  Mary  Stuart  was  at  last  sincere.  Cecil  and  Leicester  shared 
her  confidence,  or  were  prepared  to  risk  the  experiment,  and 
Darnley  was  allowed  leave  of  absence  for  three  months  in  the 
belief  that  it  might  be  safely  conceded."  *^  Dates  destroy  this 
effort  to  shelter  Elizabeth.  Leicester  and  Cecil  had  used  "  earnest 
means "   for   Darnley's    journey,   and    had    succeeded,   before    Ran- 


THE   ENGLISH    SNARE   (1565).  1 37 

dolph  wrote  the  encouraging  letter  about  Leicester's  acceptance  on 
February  6.  As  to  "sincerity,"  of  course  neither  Leicester  nor 
Elizabeth  was  sincere  at  any  time,  least  of  all  in  desiring  Mary 
to  wed  Leicester.  That  was  precisely  what  they  were  scheming 
to  prevent,  while  Elizabeth  was  pretending  to  think  of  marrying 
the  small  boy  who  was  King  of  France.  It  must  be  confessed 
that  this  device  —  namely,  to  use  Darnley  as  a  paratonnere,  or 
lightning-conductor — to  divert  Mary  from  Leicester  looks  rather 
like  a  scheme  in  a  novel  than  a  stratagem  in  diplomacy.  But 
Melville  states  the  plot  as  a  matter  of  fact  in  his  Memoirs  (pp.  129, 
130).  Randolph  had  to  try  to  suppress  the  suspicion  of  the  plan, 
which  was  rife  in  Scotland  :  when  the  plan  succeeded,  he  exclaimed 
that  Elizabeth  was  most  fortunate,  and  Mauvissiere,  the  French 
envoy,  had  no  illusions  about  Elizabeth's  part.*^  The  English 
Court  perfectly  well  knew  Darnley's  aim.  Cecil  had  announced 
it  to  Sir  Thomas  Smith  on  December  30.  On  February  3,  1565, 
hints  were  drawn  up  for  Throckmorton  as  to  affairs  in  Scotland, 
and  what  would  occur  "  if  Darnley  hit  the  mark."  *^  In  short, 
Elizabeth  and  her  ministers  deliberately,  and  beyond  doubt,  en- 
tangled Mary  in  the  fatal  snare  of  the  Darnley  marriage.  On 
February  19  Randolph  reported  Darnley's  movements.  He  dined 
with  Lord  Robert  Stuart,  Mary's  brother,  whom  Randolph  thought 
his  evil  genius.     Yet  Lord  Robert  alone  warned  Darnley  at  the  last. 

He  met  Mary  at  Wemyss  Castle,  in  Fife,  on  February  17.  Thence 
he  went  to  see  his  father  and  AthoU  at  Dunkeld,  returned  and 
went  with  Mary  to  Edinburgh,  heard  Knox  preach,  supped  with 
Murray,  and  danced  with  the  queen.  "  His  behaviour  is  very  well 
liked,  and  hitherto  so  governs  himself  that  there  is  great  praise  of 
him  "  (February  27).^*  What  did  Lethington  think?  He  merely 
wrote  to  Cecil  (February  28)  that  he  was  in  love  (with  Mary 
Fleming),  and  therefore  "  in  merry  pin." 

Meanwhile  Bothwell  was  asking  for  leave  to  come  home  from 
France,  and  Randolph  (March  3)  was  much  in  doubt  as  to  Mary's 
real  sentiments.  Elizabeth's  were  plain  :  she  let  Mary  know  that, 
even  if  she  married  Leicester,  her  recognition  must  wait  till  the 
English  queen  either  married  or  announced  her  resolve  never  to 
marry — till  the  Greek  Calends,  in  fact.^^  Mary  wept,  and  Leth- 
ington said  that  he  could  not  and  would  not  advise  her  to  wait 
any  longer.  Murray  was  "the  sorrowfullest  man  that  can  be."^*^ 
This  was  on  March   1 7  ;  on  the  20th  Randolph  reported  trouble; 


138  RICCIO   "CREEPS   IN"   (1564) 

Mary  was  aiming  at  general  toleration,  but  her  godly  subjects  would 
die  rather  than  permit  freedom  of  conscience.  Lennox  was  gather- 
ing adherents — Atholl,  Caithness,  the  detested  Ruthven,  and  Home. 
Chatelherault,  Argyll,  and  Morton  (jealous  of  the  Douglas  lands  of 
Angus,  to  which  Lady  Lennox  had  a  claim)  were  watchful  on  the 
other  side.  Murray  was  at  feud  with  Lennox's  friends.  Darnley, 
when  Lord  Robert  Stuart  showed  him  Murray's  possessions  on  the 
map,  "said  that  it  was  too  much."  Murray  heard  of  this,  and 
Mary  bade  Darnley  apologise  (March  20).'*''  Meanwhile  Riccio,  a 
Piedmontese  and  musician,  had  "  croope  in  "  to  be  Mary's  Secretary 
for  French  Affairs. ^^  Knox  writes  of  the  summer  of  1564,  "Davie 
began  to  grow  great  in  Court.  .  .  .  Great  men  made  in  Court 
unto  him,  and  their  suits  were  the  better  heard."  ^'^  Riccio  was 
born  about  1534,  and  came  to  Scotland  in  the  suite  of  the  Mar- 
quis de  Morette,  Ambassador  of  Savoy,  in  1561.  He  became  a 
valet  de  chambre^  like  Moliere,  and  succeeded  Raulet,  as  French 
secretary,  in  December  1564.  His  influence  in  March  1565  was 
already  very  great.  The  fatal  piece  was  now  set,  and  all  the 
characters  of  the  tragedy  were  falling  into  their  places. 

Murray  was  on  less  amiable  terms  than  usual  with  Mary  in  the 
season  of  Easter.  Her  hour  had  dawned,  and  she  was  hurrying  to 
her  doom  by  the  paths  which  the  Stuarts  were  wont  to  tread.  Her 
religion,  by  no  fault  of  her  own,  was  in  itself  fatal.  She  had  a 
favourite  servant,  a  foreigner  and  low-born,  even  as  such  men  were 
dear  to  James  HL  She  had,  as  was  soon  too  obvious,  a  fatal 
caprice  for  Darnley,  a  boy,  a  fool,  and  a  coward.  Her  best  allies, 
IMurray  and  Lethington,  were  day  by  day  more  estranged.  The 
nobles  were  grouping  into  two  hostile  "  bands " ;  the  Stuart  and 
Hamilton  feud  was  captained  on  either  side  by  Lennox  and  Chatel- 
herault, while  Mary,  from  clan  sympathy,  stood  by  the  Stuarts. 
Men  were  alarmed  for  their  lands,  once  those  of  Lennox,  and  apt 
to  be  restored  to  him.  The  Protestants  were  in  the  state  of  ap- 
prehensive fear  and  Vv^rath,  which  is  the  mother  of  revolutions. 
Mary  herself  had  been  goaded  into  reckless  wilfulness.  The  stress 
of  contending  world-forces  was  thrusting  against  a  girl,  and  against 
a  lad,  who  in  our  day  might  still  have  been  at  a  public  school. 
Darnley,  in  fact,  now  suffered  from  the  puerile  complaint  of 
measles,  and  Mary's  assiduity  in  nursing  him  at  Stirling  in  April 
set  tongues  moving.^*^  Her  self-restraint  was  tried  by  a  cowardly 
assault  on  a  priest,  who  was  pilloried,  pelted  with  "  thousands  "  of 


UNINVITED   RETURN   OF   BOTHWELL  (1565).  1 39 

eggs,  and  put  into  irons.  Mary  bade  the  Provost  oi  Edinburgh 
release  the  man,  with  two  Catholics  who  had  heard  his  mass. 
"There  is  now  greater  rage  amongst  the  faithful,"  says  a  spy,  and 
the  faithful  were  also  resenting  the  idolatrous  doings  of  Elizabeth. 
Murray  and  Lethington  had  asked  Cecil  to  labour  for  the  sus- 
pension of  an  edict  enforcing  the  clerical  costume  of  "  tippets  and 
caps,"  and  the  godly  heard  with  horror  that  Elizabeth  had  silenced 
a  preacher  in  mid-sermon. 

U'hile  men's  minds  were  thus  inflamed  there  were  distinct  rumours 
that  Mary  had  secretly  married  Darnley.  On  April  26  the  French 
Ambassador  at  London  wrote  to  Catherine  de'  Medici  announcing 
the  arrival  of  Lethington,  and  of  letters  from  Randolph  declaring 
that  Mary  was  already  wedded  (he  means  afifianced),  and  that  only 
the  ceremonies  of  the  Church  remained  to  be  fulfilled. ^^  The 
Spanish  Ambassador  was  of  the  same  opinion.  Information  was 
sent  to  the  Tuscan  Court  that  Mary  and  Darnley  had  been  wedded, 
or  betrothed,  in  the  chamber  of  Riccio.^-  On  April  24  Elizabeth 
gave  Throckmorton  certain  instructions  for  a  mission  to  Scotland  : 
on  May  2  he  received  another  set  of  orders.  He  was  to  tell  Mary 
that  Elizabeth  and  her  Council  thought  the  marriage  prejudicial  to 
friendship  with  England.  She  has  told  Lethington  that  Mary  may 
marry  any  other  English  noble,  but  Lethington  is  "tied  to  his 
message  for  Lord  Darnley."  Only  if  Mary  takes  Leicester  will  Eliza- 
beth stir  in  the  matter  of  the  succession.^^  Meanwhile  (April  28) 
Bedford  represented  Murray  as  neutral  on  the  Darnley  marriage.^* 
On  May  4  Throckmorton  started  for  Scotland  :  Lethington,  con- 
trary to  express  orders,  returned  with  Throckmorton.  Already  "a 
day  of  law"  had  been  given  to  Bothwell.  He  had  been  in  Scot- 
land since  March,  "  unlooked  for,  uninvited,  the  evil  spirit  of  the 
storm,"  says  Mr  Froude.  He  adds  that  Bothwell  "  reappeared  at 
Mary's  Court ;  she  disclaimed  all  share  in  his  return ;  he  was  still 
attainted,  yet  there  he  stood — none  daring  to  lift  a  hand  against 
him — proud,  insolent,  and  dangerous."  ^^  As  a  matter  of  fact.  Both- 
well  was  not  attainted,  nor  did  he  reappear  at  Mary's  Court.  The 
statements  are  eminently  picturesque  :  thus,  perhaps,  history  ought 
to  be  written,  but  not  on  this  wise  did  facts  occur.  On  March  i 
Randolph  had  reported  that  young  TuUibardine  arrived  as  an  envoy 
from  Bothwell,  asking  either  for  his  return  from  France  or  for 
money.  Mary  was  "  not  evil  affected  towards  him,"  said  Randolph  ; 
but  while  Arran  remained  a  prisoner  Bothwell  could  not  return  to 


140  BOTHWELL   EXILED. 

favour.  On  March  lo  Bedford,  from  Berwick,  reported  that 
Bothwell  was  skulking  at  Haddington  and  elsewhere:  "he  finds 
no  safety  for  himself  anywhere."  Lethington  and  Murray  wished 
him  to  be  "put  to  the  horn."  He  was  accused  of  calling  Mary 
the  mistress  of  her  uncle,  the  Cardinal.  On  March  15  Randolph 
wrote  that  the  queen  "  now  altogether  mislikes  his  home-coming 
without  her  licence."  She  had  sent  a  sergeant-at-arms  to  summon 
him  to  stand  trial.  On  March  24  Bedford  wrote  that  Bothwell 
had  been  summoned  for  May  24.^^  In  fact.  May  2  was  the  date 
of  Bothwell's  summons.  Bedford  feared  that  Mary  secretly  aided 
Bothwell,  whom  he  accuses  of  a  hideous  vice.  A  passage  in  the 
confession  attributed  to  Paris,  after  Darnley's  murder,  bears  on 
this  charge,  but  such  confessions  are  of  dubious  value.  In 
Liddesdale  Bothwell.  was  abetted  by  the  lawless  reivers  of  the 
country.  But  on  the  "day  of  law"  Bothwell  dared  not  face 
Murray ;  no  marvel,  as  Murray  brought  some  6000  armed  men 
into  Edinburgh.  Such  was  the  invariable  Scottish  method  of 
overawing  justice.  Bothwell  fled  back  to  France :  he  was  con- 
demned ;  but  apparently  Mary  did  not  allow  him  to  be  put  to 
the  horn.^''  She  was  blamed  for  her  lenity,  the  Protestants  be- 
lieving that  she  meant  to  use  Bothwell  as  a  bravo  on  fitting 
occasion. ^s  Such  are  the  facts  about  Bothwell's  uninvited  visit 
to  Scotland.  Murray  used  the  great  gathering  of  May  2  for 
other  purposes  of  intrigue,  as  we  shall  see. 

Meanwhile  Randolph,  who  had  been  perplexed  by  Elizabeth's 
sending  of  Darnley,  admitted  that  "  a  greater  benefit  to  his  queen's 
majesty  could  not  have  chanced "  than  the  Darnley  marriage 
(May  3).^^  Mary  "  is  now  in  almost  utter  contempt  of  her  people." 
She  was  accused  of  saying  that  Murray  desired  the  Crown,  and 
IMurray  and  Argyll  never  appeared  at  Court  together  for  fear  of 
treachery.  The  Darnley  party  were  Lennox,  Ruthven,  Atholl,  and 
Riccio.  The  preachers  were  demanding  the  abolition  of  Mary's 
private  mass.  After  Bothwell's  "  day  of  law  "  Murray  joined  Mary 
at  Stirling,  where  he  declined  to  sign  the  contract  for  Darnley's 
marriage.  Darnley,  he  said,  was  rather  an  enemy  to  than  a  pro- 
fessor of  Christ's  true  religion.  "  He  is  now  thought  to  be  led 
altogether  by  England,"  as  no  doubt  he  was.  His  motives  remain 
inscrutable,  but  were  probably  mixed.  He  hated  Riccio.  Darnley 
had  given  him  personal  offence.  He  was  constant  to  Protestantism, 
and  to  Elizabeth  (May  8).'^'^     Mary  was  to  create  Darnley  Earl  of 


DARNLEY   TO   MARRY   THE    QUEEN.  I4I 

Ross  :  the  nobles  were  assembled  at  Stirling  for  the  conclusion  of 
his  affair.  But  by  May  12  Lethington,  returning  from  London 
against  Mary's  orders,  had  rested  a  night  with  Throckmorton  at 
Berwick,  whence  he  wrote  to  Leicester.  T^turray,  he  said,  would 
never  consent  to  the  wedding  unless  Mary  turned  Protestant. 
Argyll  declined  to  see  the  queen.  On  May  21,  from  Edinburgh, 
Throckmorton  reported  the  results  of  his  mission."^^  It  is  of 
little  importance ;  but  if  Lethington,  as  Throckmorton  says,  was 
in  Edinburgh  with  him  on  May  13,  why  was  Lethington  in  Berwick 
on  May  15?^-  He  reached  Stirling  on  the  15th,  but  was  not  ad- 
mitted to  the  Castle  till  the  ceremony  of  belting  Darnley  as  Earl  of 
Ross  was  ended.  When  presented  to  Mary,  he  argued  with  her 
about  her  conduct,  and  learned  that  Mary  was  sending  a  new  envoy 
to  Elizabeth — Hay,  Commendator  of  Balmerinoch.  Throckmorton 
thought  that  Elizabeth  might  still  interfere,  by  force  or  by  negotia- 
tion. On  the  same  day  Randolph  wrote  to  Cecil,  expressing  sincere 
pity  for  Mary.  He  had  hitherto  found  her  worthy,  wise,  and 
honourable,  but  now  she  has  overthrown  all  for  love  of  Darnley. 
Randolph  for  some  time  harped  on  Mary's  passion  for  Darnley, 
which  he  even  attributes  to  sorcery,  just  as  Knox  was  said  to  have 
bewitched  his  second  bride.  This  absurd  theory,  held  alike  by 
Protestants  as  to  Darnley  and  by  Catholics  as  to  Knox,  still 
survives  —  in  the  superstition  of  the  blacks  of  Australia.  But 
Randolph  perhaps  attributes  the  witchcraft  to  Ruthven,  whom  he 
does  not  name,  but  whom  Murray  hated  "  for  his  sorceries."  Any 
man,  he  says,  "  that  ever  saw  her,  that  ever  loved  her,"  would  pity 
Mary.  Her  very  beauty  is  altered.  Meanwhile,  by  bluster  and 
blows,  Darnley  had  made  himself  detested.*^^  It  is  worth  while  to 
note  that  Randolph  regards  Mary's  passion  for  Darnley  as  over- 
mastering, because  by  September  19  in  the  same  year  he  had 
begun  to  insinuate  that  Mary  was  Riccio's  mistress,  and  presently 
dropped  the  same  hint  as  to  her  relations  with  Bothwell.^*  That  a 
woman  should  have  so  many  passions,  in  so  short  a  space  of  time, 
seems  almost  beyond  possibility,  unless  Mary  was  a  Messalina, 
which  is  not  proved  or  probable. 

After  this  point  the  intrigues  of  the  party  of  Murray  and  the  party 
of  Mary  become  much  entangled.  On  June  3  Randolph  told  Cecil 
that  a  convention  of  the  nobles  was  summoned  to  meet  at  Perth  on 
June  10.  The  purpose  was  "to  allow  the  marriage  with  the  Lord 
Darnley."     It  was  also  understood  that  the  next  Parliament  would 


142  DARNLEY   BRAVES    ELIZABETH. 

"establish  a  law  for  religion."  Mary  had  never  recognised  the 
illegal  Reforming  Parliament  of  August  1560,  but  had  promised  not 
to  interfere  with  the  religion  she  found  established.  A  new  Parlia- 
ment was  to  deal  with  the  whole  subject.  The  Protestants  dreaded 
a  system  of  toleration,  and  already  began  to  organise  resistance. 
Mary's  party  were  also  enrolling  their  friends,  partly  Northern  and 
Catholic  lords — Atholl,  Caithness,  Erroll,  Montrose,  with  Fleming, 
Cassilis,  Montgomery  (Eglintoun),  Home,  Lindsay,  "  who  shamefully 
hath  left  the  Earl  of  Murray,"  Ruthven,  and  Lord  Robert  Stuart. 
It  will  be  observed  that  private  and  family  feuds  and  affections  now 
made  a  cross  division.  It  was  not  a  question  of  old  faith  and  new 
faith  alone ;  and  Protestants  like  Lindsay  and  Ruthven  were  siding 
with  Lennox  against  Chatelherault,  Murray,  and  Argyll.  After 
announcing  these  facts,  Randolph  ends  his  letter  of  June  3  with 
the  news  that  the  Perth  Convention  of  June  10  is  put  off  in  fear  of 
a  hostile  Protestant  gathering.  "^^ 

To  this  Mary  appears  to  refer,  later,  in  a  letter  to  de  Foix, 
dated  November  8,  an  account  of  recent  events.  She  says  that 
Murray  in  April  promised  to  secure  her  marriage  if  he  was  recog- 
nised as  chief  Minister,  and  if  Mary  would  utterly  banish  the 
Catholic  faith.  He  then  went  to  Edinburgh  for  Bothwell's  day 
of  law  (May  2),  and  there  arranged  with  his  adherents  to  seize 
Darnley  and  Lennox  in  the  Convention  at  Perth  and  send  them 
into  England.  ]Mary,  therefore,  by  Lethington's  advice,  postponed 
the  Convention. ^*^  Now  it  was,  she  adds,  that  Murray  spread  the 
story  that  Darnley  and  Lennox  intended  to  kill  him. 

By  June  4  the  English  Council  advised  that  Lennox  and  Darnley 
should  be  recalled  and  Lady  Lennox  shut  up.  On  June  8  Elizabeth 
informed  Randolph  that  she  would  assist  the  Protestants  and  friends 
of  England.*"^  On  June  i  2  Randolph  reported  the  despatch  of  Hay, 
Commendator  of  Balmerinoch,  a  Protestant  and  a  friend  of  Murray, 
from  Mary  to  Elizabeth.^'^  On  June  27  Elizabeth  informed  Mary 
that  Balmerinoch's  message  was  unsatisfactory.  Meanwhile  Ran- 
dolph had  vainly  presented  Elizabeth's  letters  of  recall  to  Lennox 
and  Darnley.  They  determined  to  brave  her  anger ;  and  Randolph 
said  that  Darnley,  it  is  to  be  feared,  "  can  have  no  long  life  among 
this  people."  Thus  he  wrote  on  July  2,  after  the  postponed  Con- 
vention had  been  held  at  Perth.  He  dates  the  Perth  Convention  on 
June  22.  Murray  and  Chatelherault  stayed  at  home,  Argyll  and  Glen- 
cairn  went  to  the  hostile  General  Assembly  in  Edinburgh  on  June 


CHARGES   OF   TREACHERY.  143 

24.  Murray's  excuse  for  non-appearance  at  Perth  on  June  22  was 
that  his  assassination  was  plotted.  Grant,  a  retainer  of  Murray,  had 
beaten  Stuart,  captain  of  Mary's  guard.  It  was  arranged  that  Stuart 
should  attack  Grant,  and  that  Murray  should  be  killed  in  the  scuffle.^^ 
]\Iurray  had  diarrhoea,  says  Knox's  continuator,  and  that  was  why  he 
stayed  away,  at  Lochleven.'^''  Buchanan,  omitting  the  Convention, 
says  that  Murray  was  invited  to  Perth,  where  the  queen  had  only 
a  small  train.  He  was  to  be  involved  in  a  dispute  with  Darnley, 
and  Riccio  was  to  stab  him.''^  Mary  being  at  Perth,  the  General 
Assembly,  as  we  saw,  was  meeting  at  Edinburgh.  Randolph  had 
received  Elizabeth's  letter  of  June  8,  in  which  she  promised  to 
assist  the  Protestants.  He  communicated  the  happy  news  to  the 
Protestant  leaders,  and  the  Assembly  sent  six  demands  to  Mary  at 
Perth.  The  queen  herself  must  abandon  her  "  blasphemous  mass," 
and  Protestantism  must  be  ratified  by  queen  and  Parliament.  The 
other  articles  refer  to  the  stipends  of  the  preachers,  education,  the 
use  of  the  property  of  the  religious  for  the  support  of  the  poor  and 
schools,  the  punishment  of  adulterers,  Sabbath-breakers,  witches,  and 
murderers,  and  the  release  of  farmers  from  tithes.*"^  Mary  did  not  at 
once  reply  :  if  Cecil's  indorsement  of  her  answers — July  29 — is 
correct,  she  waited  a  month.  Her  answer  was  that,  "as  she  did  not 
constrain  the  conscience  of  her  subjects,  she  begged  that  they  will 
not  press  her  to  offend  her  conscience."  The  establishment  of 
rehgion  must  be  deferred  till  Parliament  meets.  The  other  replies 
were  dilatory  and  evasive.'^ 

On  July  I  Argyll  and  Murray,  from  Lochleven,  informed  Randolph 
that  they  had  met  to  decide  on  something  of  importance,  and  told 
him  its  nature,  verbally,  by  the  bearer  of  their  note."^  On  July  2, 
in  his  letter  already  cited,  Randolph  informed  Cecil  that  "  some 
that  already  have  heard  of  Lady  Lennox's  imprisonment  like  very 
well  thereof,  and  wish  both  father  and  son  "  (Lennox  and  Darnley) 
"  to  keep  her  company.  The  question  hath  been  asked  me,  Whether 
if  they  were  delivered  unto  us  at  Berwick,  we  would  receive  them  ? 
I  answered  that  we  would  not  refuse  our  own,  in  what  sort  soever 
they  came  unto  us."  Clearly  Argyll  and  "Murray  on  July  i  had 
conspired  to  seize  Darnley  and  Lennox.^^  So  Tytler  not  unnaturally 
infers ;  but  Dr  Hay  Fleming  argues,  from  internal  evidence,  that 
Randolph's  letter  of  July  2  was  mainly  written  before  the  end  of 
June.  Consequently,  the  proposal  to  seize  Darnley  cannot  have 
been  made  by  Argyll  and  Murray  on  July  i.     Again,  it  was  pre- 


144  THE   RAID   OF   BAITH. 

cisely  on  July  i  that  Mary  made  a  rapid  ride,  in  armed  company, 
from  Perth  to  Callendar  House,  because  of  a  rumour  that  Argyll 
and  Murray  meant  to  seize  her  and  carry  her  to  St  Andrews,  Darnley 
to  Castle  Campbell,  near  Dollar.  So  writes  Randolph  on  July  4.'^^ 
In  fact,  from  Randolph's  letter  of  July  4,  it  seems  that  when  the 
queen  passed  Murray's  house  at  Lochleven,  during  her  hasty  ride  of 
July  I,  Murray  lay  ill,  and  Argyll  came  there  from  Castle  Camp- 
bell to  dine  with  the  queen  and  protest  his  loyalty.  He  missed 
Mary,  who  had  ridden  on,  but  dined  with  Murray,  and  the  pair 
wrote  their  letter  of  July  i  to  Randolph.  That  letter  cannot, 
then,  have  implied  the  design  to  seize  Mary  and  Darnley  on  their 
way,  for  they  were  out  of  danger  when  it  was  written,  and  were  with 
,  Lord  Livingstone  at  Callendar  House.  But  Mary  must  have  heard 
of  some  such  design  to  seize  Darnley  and  Lennox  as  that  hinted  of 
by  Randolph  in  his  letter  dated  July  2,  but,  according  to  Dr  Hay 
Fleming,  mainly  written  in  June.  Mary  herself  accused  Murray,  as 
she  could  prove  by  a  hundred  of  his  gentlemen,  of  intending  her 
capture  and  the  murder  of  Lennox  and  Darnley  as  she  went  from 
Perth  to  Edinburgh.'^  The  story  was  generally  current,  and  was 
called  The  Raid  of  Baith."^  We  can  only  conclude  that,  if  any  one 
did  aim  at  an  attack,  it  was  not  of  this  affair  that  Argyll  and  Murray 
deliberated  at  Lochleven  on  July  i. 

Mary  kept  nervously  issuing  reassuring  proclamations.  It  was 
slanderously  said  that  she  meant  to  interfere  with  religion.  After 
her  marriage  with  Darnley  she  reissued  these  proclamations.  Re- 
ligion was  to  remain  as  she  had  found  it,  pending  the  meeting  of 
a  Parliament  which  was  constantly  deferred  by  the  growing  troubles. 
A  safe-conduct  for  Murray,  that  he  might  make  declaration  about 
the  alleged  conspiracy  against  his  life  at  Perth,  was  issued  on  July 
4.'^  A  Protestant  panic  there  was.  During  the  General  Assembly 
in  the  last  week  of  June  the  godly  Brethren  held  an  open-air  meet- 
ing near  Salisbury  Crags,  and  elected  eight  men  to  organise  armed 
resistance.^**  Now,  on  July  10  a  messenger  was  sent  by  Mary  to 
summon  these  eight  captains  before  the  Justice  on  July  26. 
Knox's  continuator  declares  that  Mary  bade  the  Provost  appre- 
hend four  of  them,  and  laid  an  embargo  on  their  houses  when 
they  were  not  taken.  Randolph  (July  4)  says  that  her  command 
makes  the  people  of  Edinburgh  fear  that  the  town  will  be  sacked ! 
All  this  because  of  the  intended  arrest  of  four  men  engaged  in 
organising  an  armed  force.     Amidst  these  alarms  Argyll  and  Murray, 


MURRAY   DECLINES   TO   COME   TO   COURT.  1 45 

by  July  4,  were  intriguing  with  Randolph  for  aid  from  Elizabeth. 
They  asked  for  ^^3000.^^  Elizabeth's  reply  (July  10)  was  but 
vaguely  encouraging,  and  could  not  well  inspire  confidence.  Mary 
on  July  13  tried  to  soothe  the  godly.  She  appointed  a  Parliament 
for  September  i,  and  (July  15)  issued  a  proclamation  that  her  lieges 
should  not  be  disturbed  for  their  religion  ;  but  she  summoned  all 
the  loyal  to  attend  her,  armed,  in  a  fortnight.^-  "  Armour,"  she 
said  in  a  circular,  "  was  being  taken  on  already,"  by  the  disloyal. 
The  reasons  appear  in  two  letters  of  Randolph's  of  July  16,  to 
Elizabeth  and  to  Cecil.^^  To  Elizabeth  he  reported  that  Mary  had 
secretly  married  Darnley  on  July  9.  To  Cecil  he  said  that  Mary 
had  told  him  she  was  free  and  could  marry  where  she  would.  She 
refused  to  conciliate  Elizabeth  by  "  making  merchandise  of  her 
religion."  Lethington  was  still  with  her  ;  few  others  of  her  old  ad- 
visers. The  Protestants  had  chosen  July  1 5  for  two  meetings,  one 
at  Perth,  one  at  Glasgow;  on  the  15th  INIary  had  forbidden  these 
meetings.  They  would  assemble  elsewhere.  Argyll  was  invading 
Atholl's  lands.  Mary,  for  this  reason,  summoned  her  loyal  subjects, 
as  we  saw,  and  wrote  to  Bothwell,  asking  him  to  return.  He  was 
needed  at  last.  While  preparing  for  war,  INIary  tried  to  win  Murray 
over  to  peace.  On  the  19th  Randolph  wrote  that  she  had  gathered 
her  forces.  Well  she  might !  The  trial  of  the  four  ringleaders  of 
Edinburgh  was  for  the  26th.  Already,  on  the  i8th,  the  hostile 
lords  had  met  at  Stirling  and  appealed  for  aid  to  Cecil  and  Eliza- 
beth.^* But  Mary  had,  in  search  of  peace,  sent  Balmerinoch  to 
Murray,  assuring  him  of  the  goodwill  of  Darnley  and  Lennox.  They 
never  planned  his  murder :  Lennox  would  meet  any  accuser  in 
single  combat.  On  July  1 7  this  mission  of  Balmerinoch  was  decided 
on.  Murray  and  Argyll  had  falsely  said  that  Murray's  death  had 
been  planned  by  Darnley  "  in  the  back-gallery  of  her  highness's 
lodging  in  Perth."  Murray  and  Argyll  must  give  up  their  informant 
or  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  treasonable  lie.  On  July  19  Balmerinoch 
returned,  and  reported  that  Murray  would  come  in  if  he  got  a  safe- 
conduct.  Mary  and  the  Privy  Council,  we  know,  had  guaranteed 
his  safety.  But  Murray,  finding  his  proposal  accepted,  declined  to 
abide  by  it,  declined  to  appear.  On  July  28  another  chance  was 
offered  to  him.  Mary  heard  that  he  really  wished  to  clear  his 
character,  and  offered  safe-conduct  for  him  and  eighty  of  his  friends. 
Come  he  would  not,  and  he  was  outlawed  on  August  6,  and  pro- 
claimed a  rebel.^^      But  already,  on  July   29,  Mary,  clad  in  deep 

VOL.    II.  K 


146  MARY'S    MARRIAGE. 

mourning,  had  been  wedded  to  Darnley,  now  Duke  of  Albanj',  and 
proclaimed  as  king.  Against  this  marriage  her  brother,  Murray, 
was  an  open  and  avowed  rebel.  And  why  was  he  a  rebel  ?  For 
love  of  the  Trew  Kirk  and  the  Protestant  cause?  A  year  ago 
(July  13,  1564)  Murray  had  written  to  Cecil  that  the  Kirk  was 
in  no  danger  from  Lennox,  "  seeing  we  have  the  favour  of  our 
prince,  and  liberty  of  our  conscience  in  such  abundance  as  heart 
can  wish."^*^  Liberty  of  conscience  he  still  enjoyed,  and,  if  he  had 
lost  Mary's  favour,  his  own  conduct  was  to  blame. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER   VI. 


^  Calendar,  i.  666-670.  ^  Knox,  ii.  334. 

^  Spanish  Calendar,  Eliz.,  i.  314.  *  Cal.  Ven.,  vii.  356. 

^  Teulet,  iii.  5.  ®  Knox,  ii.  369.  ^  Froude,  vii.  48. 

^  See  all  the  evidence  in  Hay  Fleming,  pp.  312-315,  and  Pollen,  Negotiations, 
pp.  164-167. 

^  Randolph  to  Cecil,  February  2S,  Calendar,  i.  6S5. 

^^  August  20,  Calendar,  ii.  19,  20.  Spanish  Calendar,  Eliz.,  i.  332-334,  345, 
347. 

^^  Cf.  Knox,  vi.  540.  ^2  Calendar,  ii.  7. 

1*  Randolph  to  Cecil,  February  28,  Calendar,  i.  6S5  ;  ii.   11.     Knox,  ii.  373. 

"  Laing,  Knox,  ii.  374,  note  2. 

^'  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ii.  534-545  ;  Knox,  in  the  Parliament,  ii.  3S1,  385. 

^^  Calendar,  i.  693.     Elizabeth  to  Mary  in  favour  of  Lennox,  Calendar,  ii.  14. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  19.  i^  Murray  to  Cecil,  September  23,  Calendar,  ii.  22. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  24,  25.  ^^  Knox,  ii.  391. 

-^  October  8,  Knox,  ii.  395-397. 

■^  Hume  Brown,  ii.  .198.  ^  Knox,  ii.  394. 

-■*  Some  have  supposed  a  certain  Mary  Hamilton,  hanged  for  infanticide  at  the 
Court  of  Peter  the  Great,  to  be  the  heroine  of  the  ballad ;  but,  for  many  reasons, 
this  appears  impossible. 

^  Calendar,  ii.  113,  125  ;   Knox,  ii.  415.  ^^  Calendar,  ii.  133. 

^  Laing,  in  Knox,  ii.  415,  note  3. 

^  December  31,  Randolph  to  Cecil,  Calendar,  ii.  33. 

-^  Randolph  to  Cecil,  February  21,  1564,  Calendar,  ii.  43. 

'"'  Knox  to  Cecil,  October  6,  1563. 

2^  Calendar,  ii.  61.  ^'-  Hay  Fleming,  p.  96. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  67,  July  13.  ^*  Calendar,  ii.  61,  62. 

^'  Froude,  vii.  211;  Tytler,  vi.  299,  350  (edition  1837);  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii. 
210  ;  Calendar,  ii.  76.  Mr  Froude  adds,  "  Endorsed  in  Cecil's  hand.  '  The  Queen's 
Majesty's  writing,  being  sick.  September  23.'  "  The  actual  indorsement  is,  "  23rd 
September  1564.     At  St  James.     The  Q.  wrytyng  io  me,  being  sick.     Scotland." 

•'^  October  7,  Calendar,  ii.  S0-S2,  Instructions. 


NOTES.  147 

^  Randolph  to  Cecil,  October  6,  1564,  Calendar,  ii.  84. 

^^  Randolph  to  Cecil,  October  24,  1564,  Calendar,  ii.  S5. 

23  Randolph  to  Cecil,  February  12,  1565,  Calendar,  ii.  95,  124,  125. 

*"  Calendar,  ii.  125. 

■*!  Froude,  vii.  235-237.  ^'  See  authorities  in  Hay  Fleming,  pp.  337,  33S. 

*^  Calendar,  ii.  1 18-120.  *■*  Calendar,  ii.  12S. 

■*'  Keith,  iii.  330.     A  set  of  notes  in  Cecil's  hand. 

■*s  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  316,  March  17,  1565.  ^7  Keith,  ii.  26S-275. 

■**  Calendar,  ii.  133.  ^'  Knox,  ii.  422. 

^0  Bedford  to  Cecil,  April  18,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  33S. 

51  Teulet,  ii.  35,  36. 

'-  Labanoff,  vii.  67.     See  Pollen,  "Negotiations,"  pp.  Ixxiv,  Ixxv. 

^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  349,  350.  ^*  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  346. 

^•'  Froude,  vii.  247. 

^^  M.  Philippson  says  that  May  24  is  a  misreading  for  March  24,  but,  writing 
himself  on  March  24,  Bedford  could  not  say  "day"  is  given  him  to  come  by  the 

24th  March  (Philippson,  ii.  333). 

°''  Hay  Fleming,  p.  359.  Dr  Hay  Fleming  says  that  Bothwell  was  put  to  the 
horn,  citing  Pitcairn's  "Criminal  Trials,"  i.  462*.  But  Knox's  continuator  and 
Randolph  (May  3,  1565,  Cal.  For.  Eliz.,  vii.  351)  declare  that  Mary  prevented 
the  horning  (Knox,  ii.  479). 

58  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  306,  312,  314,  319,  320,  327,  340,  341,  347,  351. 

5»  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  351.  go  Yot.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  357,  358. 

61  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  369.  62  Yor.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  366. 

6'  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  366-372  ;  Calendar,  ii.  152-168. 

^*  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  464.  "5  Calendar,  ii.  172-174. 

^^  Labanoff,  i.  300-302.  67  Calendar,  ii.  175. 

68  Calendar,  ii.  1 75- 177.  6"  Keith,  ii.  300,  Randolph's  letter  of  July  2. 

""  Knox,  ii.  4S4.  "i  Buchanan,  fol.  208. 

'-  Knox,  ii.  485,  486;  Calendar,  ii.  178,  179. 

"3  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  414.  "■*  Stevenson,  Illustrations,  p.  118. 

"5  Keith,  ii.  307.  ^6  Keith,  ii.  309. 

"''  Labanoff,  i.  304,  305.  "s  See  Hay  Fleming,  pp.  354-356. 

'3  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  341,  342.  ^'>  Knox,  ii.  4S7. 

81  Keith,  ii.  317,  318.  -'2  Keith,  ii.  326,  327. 

83  Calendar,  ii.  181  ;  Stevenson,  p.  118.  84  p^r.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  408. 

^  Register  of  Privy  Council,  i.  349,  350.         ^^  p-Qr.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  176. 


148 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    TWO    MURDERS. 
1565-1567- 

The  dances  and  delights  of  the  marriage  being  ended,  Mary  had  to 
face  Elizabeth's  new  envoy,  Tamworth,  and  to  secure  support  against 
her  rebel  lords,  now  in  Argyll.  She  strengthened  herself  by  restor- 
ing, in  some  degree,  Huntly's  son.  Lord  George,  to  Huntly's  estate 
and  government  in  the  North.  She  also  recalled  Bothwell,  who  did 
not  arrive  till  September  1 7,  bringing  with  him,  as  shall  be  seen,  the 
beginnings  of  a  feud  with  Lennox  and  Darnley.  Just  before  Murray's 
forfeiture  Tamworth  arrived  in  Edinburgh  :  on  August  1 1  he  reports 
that  "  I  must  send  to  Berwick  for  the  money  I  left  there,  and  deliver 
it  to  those  here  appointed  by  Murray  to  receive  it."  ^  As  Elizabeth 
later  denied  that  she  had  aided  Mary's  rebels,  it  is  well  to  prove  her 
mendacity  out  of  her  envoy's  own  mouth.  Tamworth  communicated 
Elizabeth's  remonstrances,  partly  as  to  Mary's  personal  treatment  of 
herself,  partly  against  a  change  in  religion.  She  declared  that  she 
had  heard  of  a  plot  to  murder  Murray,  and  bade  Mary  not  to  summon 
him  "  before  his  mortal  enemies."  -  Mary  replied  with  spirit.^  She 
thought  no  prince  would  "desire  reckoning  or  account"  of  her 
marriage.  If  Elizabeth  behaved  uncousinly,  she  had  other  friends 
and  allies, — other  broken  reeds,  her  foreign  kindred.  She  had 
never  meddled  with  English  affairs,  and  begged  Elizabeth  not  to 
meddle  with  hers.  As  to  religion,  she  had  made  no  innovation,  nor 
meant  to  make  any,  save  by  advice  of  her  subjects.  (Note  that  if 
her  good  subjects,  in  Parliament,  advised  alteration,  in  a  Catholic 
direction,  Mary  might  accept  their  counsel.)  Murray,  she  said,  was 
her  subject,  and  she  warned  Elizabeth  not  to  interfere.  She  herself 
had  not  interfered  when  Lady  Lennox  was  imprisoned.  Promises 
followed.     During  Elizabeth's  life,  and  that  of  her  issue,  Mary  and 


I 


SCANDAL   ABOUT   RICCIO   (1565).  I49 

Darnley  would  attempt  nothing  prejudicial  to  their  title ;  or  intrigue 
with  English  subjects,  or  receive  English  rebels,  or  confederate  with 
any  foreign  prince  against  England.  Any  fair  alliance  with  England 
they  would  accept.  If  they  ever  succeeded  to  the  English  Crown, 
they  would  not  alter  the  religion.  All  these  promises,  however,  were 
conditional.  Elizabeth  must  recognise  Mary,  and  failing  her  and  her 
issue,  Lady  Lennox  and  her  issue,  as  her  heirs,  failing  issue  of  Eliza- 
beth's. Elizabeth  must  not  deal  with  Scottish  subjects,  or  abet 
Scottish  rebels,  or  ally  herself  with  foreign  Powers  against  Scotland. 
Further  details  are  left  to  commissioners.*  Poor  Tamworth,  refus- 
ing to  accept  a  safe-conduct  signed  by  Darnley  as  "king,"  was 
arrested  on  the  Border  at  Hume  Castle. 

Mary  was  now  probably  her  own  adviser.  James  Balfour, — later 
Sir  James,  Knox's  fellow-oarsman  in  the  galleys, — with  Riccio,  is 
spoken  of  as  most  potent  in  her  councils,  and  later,  he  was  one  of 
the  basest  of  her  betrayers.  But  probably  she  trusted  to  her  own 
high  heart.  She  daunted  Elizabeth,  and  after  Knox  had  preached 
at  very  enormous  length  against  her  in  presence  of  Darnley,  she 
suspended,  or  tried  to  suspend,  him  from  preaching  for  three  weeks  ^ 
(August  19).  She  reissued  the  proclamation  against  change  in  re- 
ligion till  Parliament  should  meet,  and  she  summoned  her  forces  for 
various  dates.  She  warned  Randolph  that  she  knew  his  dealings  with 
her  rebels.  On  August  26  she  went  to  Linhthgow,  and  began  her 
hunt  of  Murray  and  his  accomplices.  She  would  rather  lose  her 
crown,  she  told  Randolph,  than  not  be  avenged  on  Murray.  This 
he  ascribed  to  private  grudge,  and  perhaps  may  hint  that  Murray 
was  aware  that  she  was  Riccio's  mistress.  Randolph  wrote  thus  on 
August  27.  He  had  long  dwelt  on  her  infatuation  for  Darnley. 
Mary  was  but  a  bride  of  a  month  ;  was  she,  in  Randolph's  opinion, 
already  perhaps  an  adulteress  ?  Bedford  made  the  same  insinuation 
as  early  as  September  19.''  On  October  16,  1565,  de  Foix  reports 
from  London  that  he  asked  Elizabeth  why  Mary  hated  Murray, — as 
if  his  ingratitude  and  open  rebellion  were  not  cause  enough  !  Eliza- 
beth, after  a  pause,  answered  that  it  was  because  Mary  had  learned 
"  that  Murray  had  wanted  to  hang  an  Italian  named  David  whom 
she  loved  and  favoured,  giving  him  more  credit  and  authority  than 
were  consistent  with  her  interest  and  honour."  ^  The  fair  subject  of 
these  slanders  was  meanwhile  driving  her  rebels  up  and  down  the 
country. 

When  Mary  reached  Glasgow,  Murray  retired  on  Paisley,  and 
thence  to  Hamilton.     Here  a  fight  was  expected,  and  it  is  curious 


150  MARY   PURSUES   MURRAY. 

to  note  Mr  Froude's  account  of  the  affair.  "  Mary  carried 
pistols  in  hand,  and  pistols  at  her  saddle-bow."  Now  Randolph 
mentions  a  rumour  of  this  kind,  but  adds,  "  I  take  it  for  a  tale." 
"  Her  one  peculiar  hope  was  to  encounter  and  destroy  her  brother," 
says  Mr  Froude,  apparently  holding  that  Mary  carried  her  apocryphal 
pistols  for  this  fratricidal  purpose.  "A  fight  was  looked  for  at 
Hamilton,  where "  (as  Mr  Froude  quotes  Randolph's  letter  of 
September  4)  "a  hundred  gentlemen  of  her  party  determined  to 
set  on  Murray  in  the  battle,  and  either  slay  him  or  tarry  behind 
lifeless."^  Randolph  said  nothing  of  this  kind:  he  said  the  very 
reverse.  The  passage  is  thus  given  in  the  '  Calendar  of  State 
Papers ' :  ^  "Ac.  gentlemen  are  determined  to  set  upon  hym  in  the 
battayle  self  whear  soever  the  Queenes  howsband  be,  and  ether  to 
slaye  hym  "  (Darnley,  Mr  Bain  adds  in  a  note)  "  or  tarrie  behynde 
lyveles  amongeste  them."  "  Other  devices  there  are  for  this  "  (that 
is,  for  slaying  Darnley),  "  as  hard  to  be  executed  as  the  other.  If 
this  continue,  they  "  (the  rebels)  "  trust  not  a  little  in  the  queen's 
majesty's  support " — that  is,  in  the  support  of  Elizabeth.  Mary  has 
so  much  to  answer  for  that  historians  need  not  attribute  to  her 
party  the  homicidal  designs  of  her  opponents.  Murray's  men  were 
sworn  to  kill  Darnley,  not  Mary's  men  to  kill  Murray. 

There  was  no  fight  at  Hamilton  or  elsewhere.  On  the  night  of 
August  30  Murray,  Chatelherault,  Glencairn,  Rothes,  Boyd,  and  the 
rest  rode  into  Edinburgh.  Erskine  (now  Earl  of  Mar)  fired  on  them 
from  the  castle.  The  Brethren  would  not  join  them,  even  for  pay. 
"  The  Calvinist  shopkeepers  who  could  be  so  brave  against  a  miser- 
able priest  had  no  stomach  for  a  fight  with  armed  men,"  says  Mr 
Froude.  The  Lords  kept  asking  Bedford  to  send  them  English 
musketeers  :  none  were  sent.  On  September  2  they  fied  before 
dawn,  only  escaping  Mary  by  favour  of  a  tempest  which  changed 
burns  into  rivers  and  delayed  her  march.  "And  albeit  the  most 
part  waxed  weary,  yet  the  queen's  courage  increased  manlike,  so 
much  that  she  was  ever  with  the  foremost,"  says  Knox  or  his  con- 
tinuator.  The  Lords  retired  on  Dumfries,  where  they  lay  for  three 
weeks,  while  Mary  raised  forced  loans,  and  took  in  hand  the  godly 
towns  of  Dundee  and  St  Andrews,  while  securing  Glasgow  from 
Argyll.  Her  main  need  was  money,  and  on  September  i  o  she  sent 
Yaxley,  an  English  retainer  of  Darnley's,  to  solicit  help  from  the 
King  of  Spain. ^'^  She  announced  that  she  would  maintain  "the 
liberty  of  the   Church,"  and   that  she  wished   to  resist  the  estab- 


MURRAY   RETREATS   TO   ENGLAND.  I5I 

lishment  of  Protestant  errors,  a  point  to  which  we  shall  return. 
Yaxley  was  drowned  on  his  return  voyage :  his  Spanish  money 
never  reached  Mary. 

On  September  2  the  rebel  lords,  from  Dumfries,  sent  Robert 
Melville  to  England,  asking  for  3000  men,  money,  and  ammun- 
ition.^^ EHzabeth  had  granted  ;^3ooo,  as  if  a  gift  from  Bedford, 
and  denied  the  fact  to  de  Foix,  who  threatened  that  France  would 
help  Mary,  if  Elizabeth  aided  Mary's  rebels.^-  Meanwhile  in 
Mary's  camp  all  was  not  well.  On  September  29  de  Foix  reports 
that  Lethington  is  not  listened  to ;  James  Balfour,  John  Lesley, 
and  Robert  Carnegie  are  trusted.  Bothwell's  arrival  was  certain 
to  cause  divisions.  Lethington  and  Morton  were  probably  in- 
triguing with  the  rebels  :  Lethington  and  Bothwell  were  old 
enemies.  Only  a  strain  of  Douglas  blood  in  their  kin  kept 
Lindsay,  Ruthven,  and  Morton  nominally  loyal  to  Darnley,  a 
Douglas  on  the  spindle  side.  By  October  2  Cockburn  could  tell 
Cecil  that  Mary  and  Darnley  were  at  strife,  Darnley  wanting 
Lennox  to  be  in  command  on  the  Border,  while  Mary  preferred 
Bothwell,  "therefore  she  makes  him  lieutenant  of  the  Marches."  ^^ 
Mauvissibre,  an  envoy  from  France,  could  not  induce  Mary  to 
treat  with  the  Lords  at  Dumfries.  Mr  Froude  quotes  a  letter 
of  Bedford  to  Cecil  of  October  5.  "She  said  she  would  hear 
of  no  peace  till  she  had  Murray's  or  Chatelherault's  head."  ^* 
This  appears  in  the  Calendar  as  "  there  is  talk  of  peace  with  that 
queen "  (Mary)  "  but  that  she  will  first  have  the  head  of  the 
Duke  or  of  Murray."  On  October  8  Mary  left  Edinburgh  for 
Dumfries,  with  "  the  whole  force  of  the  North,"  under  Huntly, 
now  provisionally,  till  Parliament  met,  restored  to  his  father's 
lands  and  dignities.  He  blamed  Murray  for  the  recent  ruin  of 
his  father.  The  Lords  did  not  await  Mary's  advance.  They 
had  crossed  the  Border  to  Carlisle  on  October  6,  and  we  can 
scarcely  agree  with  Mr  Froude  that  Mary,  "  following  them  in 
hot  pursuit,  glared  across  the  frontier  at  her  escaping  prey,  half 
tempted  to  follow  them,  and  annihilate  the  petty  guard  of  the 
English  commander."  ^^  On  October  14  Mary  was  still  at  Dum- 
fries.^^  On  the  same  day,  from  Carlisle,  INIurray  wrote  to  Cecil, 
explaining  his  real  motives  for  rebelling.  "  Neither  they  nor  I 
enterprised  this  action  (without  foresight  of  our  sovereign's  in- 
dignation) save  that  we  were  moved  thereto  by  the  queen,  your 
sovereign," ^^      (Mr    Froude    prints   '■'■with  foresight"   in    place  of 


152  THE   COMEDY   OF   ELIZABETH. 

'■' ivithout")  The  Lords  went  to  Newcastle.  On  October  17 
Bedford  announced  that  Murray  was  probably  going  to  London. 
On  October  20  Elizabeth  bade  Bedford  stop  Murray,  at  Ware; 
on  October  21  he  received  commands  not  to  approach  Eliza- 
beth. However,  Elizabeth  altered  her  plan  and  allowed  him  to 
advance,  for  her  new  purposes. 

She  wished  to  prove  that  she  had  never  intrigued  with  Mary's 
rebels.  She  played  a  little  comedy.  First,  says  Mr  Froude, 
following  de  Silva,  the  Spanish  Ambassador,  she  received  Murray 
secretly  at  night,  and,  with  Cecil,  instructed  him  in  his  part,  to 
be  acted  next  day.  Of  this  rehearsal  the  official  report,  drawn 
up  on  October  23,  for  distribution  in  the  Courts  of  France  and 
Spain,  says  nothing.  Murray,  says  the  official  record,  was  brought 
into  the  presence  of  Elizabeth,  her  Council,  Mauvissiere,  and  de 
Foix,  the  French  Ambassador.  He  knelt,  and  explained  that  he 
wished  to  beg  Elizabeth  to  intercede  for  himself  and  his  friends 
with  Mary.  Elizabeth  replied  that  it  was  strange  for  a  man  in 
his  case  to  approach  her.  What  could  he  reply  to  the  charges 
of  refusing  to  obey  Mary's  summons,  and  of  levying  a  force 
against  her?  He  must  answer  "on  the  faith  of  a  gentleman." 
Now  Murray,  nine  days  earlier,  as  we  saw,  had  told  Cecil  that 
he  never  would  have  stirred  but  for  Elizabeth's  impelling  him. 
However,  now  he  said  that  he  disobeyed  Mary's  summons  to 
meet  her  at  Court  because  he  learned,  on  his  way,  that  his  life 
was  in  peril,  and  that  he  then  gave  her  this  reason.  He  ex- 
plained that  Mary  asked  him  who  gave  him  warning,  and  that 
he  declined  to  give  up  his  informant,  at  least  till  six  months 
were  gone.  So  he  was  put  to  the  horn,  and  wandered  about, 
a  fugitive,  with  Argyll,  Chatelherault,  and  Glencairn,  reaching 
Dumfries  "  with  not  much  above  eighty  horse."  He  had  chosen 
"so  to  flee  rather  than  to  be  a  party  against  his  sovereign." 
How  untrue  all  this  was  we  have  seen.  He  utterly  denied  that 
he  had  ever  been  privy  to  any  scheme  for  seizing  Mary.  His 
one  purpose  was  to  defend  true  religion,  peace,  and  amity  with 
England.  Elizabeth  "very  roundly"  told  him  before  the  am- 
bassador that  not  for  the  world  would  she  aid  any  rebel  against 
his  sovereign.  Her  conscience  would  in  that  case  condemn,  and 
God  would  punish  her.     So  she  broke  off  the  interview. 

Such  is  the  gist  of  the  official  report.^^  If  the  official  report 
is    correct,    Elizabeth    lied    boldly    and    Murray    held    his    peace, 


THE   COMEDY   OF   ELIZABETH.  1 53 

to  deceive  the  French  spectators.  Dr  Hay  Fleming  writes,  "  Sin- 
fully silent  Murray  seems  to  have  been  under  Elizabeth's  denun- 
ciation." ^^  Mr  Froude  remarks  that  Murray  "  was  evidently  no 
consenting  party  to  the  deception."  Yet  it  is  Mr  Froude  who  tells 
us  that  "Elizabeth  had  exercised  a  wise  caution  in  preparing  Murray 
for  this  preposterous  harangue,"  her  first  speech.  Did  she  instruct 
him  in  one  scene  of  the  comedy  and  not  in  another?  Besides, 
"Elizabeth  had  doubtless  made  it  a  condition  of  her  further 
friendship  that  he  should  say  nothing  by  which  she  could  be 
herself  incriminated."  If  Murray  admitted  that  condition,  of 
course,  and  undeniably,  he  was  (though  Mr  Froude  denies  it) 
"a  consenting  party  to  the  deception."  That  Mary,  a  beautiful 
unhappy  woman,  should  enchant  historians,  and  lead  them  into 
fairyland,  is  intelligible.  But  by  what  spell  does  a  rigid  male 
Scottish  Puritan  carry  grave  writers  captive  ?  Mr  Froude  says 
that  Sir  James  Melville  "  describes  Elizabeth  as  extorting  from 
Murray  an  acknowledgment  that  she  had  not  encouraged  the 
rebellion,  and  as  then  bidding  him  depart  from  her  presence 
as  an  unworthy  traitor.  Sir  James  does  but  follow  an  official 
report  which  was  drawn  up  under  Elizabeth's  eye  and  sanction." 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  official  report  is  destitute  of  what  Mr 
Froude  says  that  it  contains.  After  declaring  that  God  would 
punish  her  if  she  aided  rebels,  she  "  so  brake  off  hir  speche  any 
farder  with  hym."-^  Knox,  or  his  continuator,  tells  us  that  after 
the  two  French  envoys  had  departed,  Murray  said  to  Elizabeth, 
"We  know  assuredly  that  we  had  lately  faithful  promises  of  aid 
and  support  by  your  ambassador  and  familiar  servants  in  your 
name,  and  further  we  have  your  own  handwriting  confirming  the 
said  promises."  ^^  Perhaps  Murray  told  Knox  that  he  thus  allowed 
Elizabeth  to  lie  in  public,  and  then  rebuked  her  in  private.  His 
was  not  a  noble  part ;  but  then  there  is  no  reason  for  believing 
the  story.  We  cannot  ascertain  the  precise  degree  of  the  stain- 
less Murray's  degradation.  However,  at  the  lowest  reckoning,  it 
was  dark  and  deep.  "Sinfully  silent"  he  was,  even  if,  as  Dr 
Hay  Fleming  supposes,  he  may  have  been  staggered  by  Eliza- 
beth's "  shameful  audacity."  That  he  could  not  be,  however,  if 
de  Silva  truly  reports  that  Elizabeth  had  rehearsed  the  piece  with 
him  on  the  previous  night.  Mr  Froude,  accepting  the  anecdote, 
can  yet  believe  that  Murray  "was  not  a  consenting  party  to  the 
deception."      Perhaps  admirers   of   Murray  will    do  well    to    hold 


154  darnley's  feud  with  riccio. 

that   Elizabeth   did   secretly  train   him   to   the   comedy.      We  can 
better  excuse  Murray  for 

"sinning  on  such  heights  with  one, 
The  Flower  of  all  the  West  and  all  the  world," 

Gloriana  herself.      Best  palliation  of  all,  Murray  must  have  known 
that  no  mortal  was  deceived  by  the  transparent  farce. 

Though  Argyll  remained  in  his  own  country  as  safe  as  an  in- 
dependent prince,  and  wasted  the  lands  of  Lennox  and  AthoU, 
Murray  and  his  brother-exiles  were  now  discredited.  Mary  was 
in  the  position  of  her  father,  James  V.,  when  he  expelled  Angus 
and  the  Douglases.  But  Captain  Cockburn,  an  envoy  from  Cecil, 
and  a  historically  minded  man,  warned  Mary  of  her  danger  by  this 
very  example.  James  had  taken  little,  Cockburn  said,  by  his 
expulsion  of  the  Douglases.^^ 

Presently  the  ghost  of  the  ancient  Douglas  feud  was  to  arise 
against  Mary.  In  short,  since  Bruce  forfeited  the  Anglophile  lords, 
entailing  thirty  years  of  war  on  his  country,  such  measures  as  Mary 
took  with  Murray  and  his  allies  had  never  prospered  in  Scotland. 
The  great  Scottish  Houses,  however  divided  among  themselves, 
were  allied  by  ties  of  blood,  and  had  one  common  interest,  that 
of  rebelling  with  relative  impunity.  On  that  point  they  were  sure  to 
cling  together,  as  Mary  was  to  learn.  She  had  meanwhile  terrified 
Elizabeth,  who  offered  to  send  commissioners  to  treat,  but  presently 
recovered  heart,  and  made  Randolph  declare  that  he  had  misunder- 
stood her  letter.  That  letter  was  demanded,  but  Randolph  would 
not  give  it  up.  Elizabeth  still  took  the  view  that  Darnley  was 
no  king,  but  her  rebellious  subject.  Mary's  own  party  was  disunited. 
Lethington,  who  had  always  been  with  Mary,  though  less  listened  to 
at  this  time  than  Riccio  and  Sir  James  Balfour,  was  known  or  sus- 
pected to  have  intrigued  with  Murray.  In  November  he  was  trying 
to  recover  favour. ^^  Morton  also,  the  son  of  the  perfidious  Sir 
George  Douglas,  might  hold  the  Great  Seal,  but  his  loyalty  was 
dubious."^  Meanwhile,  in  December  and  early  spring,  Darnley  was 
often  absent  for  long  periods,  hawking,  hunting,  "  drinking,  and 
driving  ower,"  as  James  VI.  said  of  himself.  Knox's  continuator 
says  that  Mary  let  Riccio  use  a  stamp  bearing  Darnley's  signature, 
alleging  that  "the  king"  was  often  absent  "at  his  pastime,"  as  in 
fact  he  was.-^ 

Darnley's  behaviour  was  the  more  inconsiderate  as  in  November 


MARY'S   ATTITUDE   TO   RELIGION.  1 55 

it  became  obvious  that  Mary  was  with  child,  though  Randolph 
doubted  the  fact  as  long  as  possible,  indeed  till  April.  There 
were  jars  as  to  the  precedence  of  Darnley's  name  or  Mary's  in  public 
documents.  Knox's  continuator,  and  Buchanan,  having  just  com- 
plained that  Darnley  received  a  kingly  title,  now  grumble  that  his 
name  was  omitted,  or  that  Mary's  had  precedence.-*^  Bishop  Keith 
remarks  that  Mary  signed  her  name  first  in  order  less  than  a  month 
after  her  marriage.  In  royal  charters,  the  Bishop  says,  "  I  can  certify 
my  readers  that  the  queen's  name  is  never  so  much  as  once  set 
before  the  king's." ^'^  "The  ki7ig  and  queen's  majesties,"  "Our 
sovereign  lord  and  lady,"  also  appear  in  the  Privy  Council  Register. 
But  on  December  22,  1565,  our  soveran  queen  is  named  before 
our  king  in  a  statute  for  coining  a  penny  of  silver  called  the  Mary 
Ryall,  a  coin  whereon  "Maria"  precedes  "  Henricus."-^  All 
this  vexed  Darnley's  royal  ambitions.  On  Christmas  Day,  1565, 
Randolph  reports  on  this  weighty  matter,  and  suspects  a7}iantiuni 
ircz,  lovers'  quarrels.  Did  he  really  think  Riccio  "  the  happiest  of 
the  three  "?-^  In  December  Chatelherault,  who  had  submitted, 
was  exiled  to  France  for  five  years.  This  limited  forgiveness  was 
resented  by  Lennox  and  Darnley,  deadly  foes  of  the  Hamiltons.^*^ 
Murray  was  asking  Mary  to  pardon  him,  asking  Elizabeth  to  inter- 
cede for  him.  His  kinsman,  Douglas  of  Lochleven,  offered  Riccio 
;^5ooo  (Scots)  for  his  influence,  and  was  refused. ^^  Murray  gener- 
ously begged  Randolph  not  to  incur  suspicion  for  his  sake,  and 
though  he  professed  himself  the  servant  of  Elizabeth,  he  certainly 
clung  staunchly  to  his  exiled  allies — so  mixed  is  the  character  of 
this  enigmatic  earl.  The  important  question  was.  What  should 
be  decided  in  the  Parliament,  which  was  to  have  met  in  February 
1566,  but  was  now  postponed  to  early  March?  The  banished 
lords  were  summoned  to  hear  their  own  forfeiture  pronounced  in 
this  Parliament.  No  less  than  total  ruin  to  them,  the  chief 
noble  friends  of  the  Kirk,  was  implied.  But  as  to  religion, 
what  would  be  decided  ?  Mary  had  always  referred  a  definite 
ecclesiastical  settlement  to  a  Parliament  which  had  never  sat. 
Now  that  Parhament  seemed  to  be  at  hand  —  though  it  was 
never  to  meet. 

Mary  is  accused  of  great  duplicity  in  this  matter  of  religion. 
What  had  she  promised,  for  example,  recently,  on  July  12,  1565? 
Merely  that  her  subjects  should  not  be  "  molested  in  the  quiet  using 
of  their  religion  "  ;  "  in  the  using  of  their  religion  and  conscience 


156  MARY'S   AIM   TOLERATION? 

freely"  (July  20).^-  On  September  to,  it  is  true,  she  asked  Philip 
of  Spain  for  aid  against  "  the  entire  ruin  of  the  Catholics,  and  the 
establishment  of  these  wretched  errors,"  and  for  "  the  perpetual 
liberty  of  the  Church."  ^^  Mary  had  told  both  Protestant  and 
Catholic,  had  told  Knox  and  had  told  the  Pope,  that  she  would 
defend  the  Catholic  Church.  "Ye  are  not  the  Kirk  that  I  will 
nureiss.  I  will  defend  the  Kirk  of  Rome,  for  I  think  it  is  the  trew 
Kirk  of  God,"  said  Mary  to  Knox.^*  There  is  no  duplicity  in  that 
declaration.  It  may  be  detected,  if  at  all,  in  Mary's  proclamation  at 
Dundee  on  September  15.  On  September  10  she  had  told  the 
King  of  Spain  that  she  foresaw  the  "  danger  of  the  establishment 
of  wretched  errors,  for  which  the  king  and  I,  as  we  desire  to  resist 
them,  shall  be  in  danger  of  losing  our  crown,  and  our  claim  of  right 
elsewhere"  (in  England),  "if  we  have  not  the  aid  of  one  of  the 
great  princes  of  Christianity."  On  September  15,  in  the  Dundee 
proclamation,  Mary  denies  that  she  intends  "  the  subversion  of  the 
state  of  religion  which  their  majesties  found  publicly  and  universally 
standing  at  their  arrival  in  this  realm."  ^^  Their  majesties  have  "  a 
sincere  meaning  toward  the  establishing  of  religion"  "Their  good 
subjects  [may]  assure  themselves  to  be  in  full  surety  thereof  in  time 
coming."  All  laws  of  every  kind  "  prejudicial  to  the  same  "  are  to 
be  abolished  in  Parliament.  But  "  the  same  "  seems  to  mean  the 
7iot  "  pressing  of  any  person  in  the  free  use  of  their  conscience,  or 
attempting  anything  against  the  same  [Protestant]  religion."  Finally, 
after  Riccio's  murder  in  March  1566,  and  after  Parliament  had  been 
dispersed,  Mary  told  Beaton,  her  ambassador  in  France,  that  in 
electing  the  Lords  of  the  Articles  (March  7)  the  Spiritual  Estate  was 
represented,  "in  the  ancient  manner,  tending  to  have  done  some 
good  anent  restoring  the  auld  religion."  ^^  Lesley  says  that  a 
measure  was  to  be  proposed  to  "allow  the  bishops  and  rectors 
the  full  exercise  of  their  ancient  religion/'  ^"^ 

Now,  taking  all  this  together,  we  may,  perhaps,  venture  to 
conceive  that  Mary  always  intended  to  secure,  if  she  could, 
the  parliamentary  sanction  of  "  freedom  of  conscience "  and  the 
"  liberty "  of  her  own  Church.  It  does  not  seem  by  any  means 
to  follow  that  she  intended  to  persecute  or  molest  Protestants. 
On  Christmas  Day,  1565,  Randolph  wrote,  "It  is  said  liberty 
of  conscience  shall  be  granted  at  this  Parliament."  ^^  If  we 
believe  that  to  permit  one  religion  is  to  molest  the  devotees  of 
another;   if  the  right  to  persecute   was  an   established  Protestant 


MASSACRE    OR   MURDER?  1 57 

privilege ;  if  Mary  ever  promised  to  ratify  that  privilege  as  soon 
as  she  could  get  a  Parliament  together ;  —  then  her  duplicity 
is  undeniable.  But  it  is  otherwise  if  she  aimed  at  Parliamentary 
sanction  for  freedom  of  conscience  and  concurrent  endowment. 
Perhaps  that  is  the  defence  which  she  would  have  made  of  her 
own  behaviour.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Mary  joined  the  Catholic 
League,  as  Randolph  averred  to  Cecil  (February  7,  1566),  the 
defence  is  valueless.  "This  band  ...  is  subscribed  by  this 
queen,"  he  says.  But  the  nuncio,  on  March  16,  1567,  tells 
the  Pope  that  Mary  missed  her  chance  by  refusing  to  accept 
certain  advice  when  it  was  offered  to  her;  '■'■  ella  non  ha  voluto 
}uai  i}ite?idere."  ^^  Dr  Hay  Fleming  observes,  "  It  is  impossible, 
however,  to  say  what  Mary  might  have  done "  in  certain  circum- 
stances which  did  not  occur.*^  Mr  Froude  unhesitatingly  accepts 
Randolph's  affirmation,  though  Bedford,  a  week  later,  says  that 
Mary  has  not  yet  "  confirmed  "  the  band.'*^  Mr  Froude  sums  up 
the  matter  thus  :  *'  Mary  determined  to  make  an  effort  to  induce 
the  Estates  to  re-establish  Catholicism  as  the  religion  of  Scotland, 
leaving  the  Protestants  for  the  present  with  liberty  of  conscience, 
but  with  small  prospect  of  retaining  long  a  privilege  which,  when 
in  power,  they  had  refused  to  their  opponents."  ^^  Whatever  were 
her  exact  intentions,  if  she  declined  to  join  a  league,  and  aimed  at 
a  constitutional  security  for  freedom  of  conscience,  her  duplicity, 
as  politicians  go,  can  scarcely  be  deemed  exorbitant.  She  was 
merely  like  Burke,  as  described  by  Fox,  "right,  too  early."  But 
it  is  true  that  to  prevent  Protestants  of  Knox's  kind  from  perse- 
cuting Catholics  was,  in  fact,  to  deprive  them  of  "  freedom  of  con- 
science," as  they  understood  that  expression.  As  to  the  Catholic 
League  which  Mary  is  said  to  have  joined.  Father  Pollen  asserts 
that  there  was  no  such  league  to  join.'*^  What  really  happened 
was  extraordinary  enough.  In  February  1566  Mary  sent  the  Bishop 
of  Dunblane  to  Rome  to  ask  for  a  subsidy.  The  Pope,  pitying  the 
estate  of  Mary  after  the  Riccio  conspiracy,  promised  money,  which 
was  to  be  brought  by  a  nuncio.  The  nuncio  never  did  bring  it, 
for  he  made  it  a  condition  that  Mary  should  first  execute  Murray, 
Argyll,  Morton,  Lethington,  Bellenden,  and  Makgill !  Mary  declined 
to  decapitate  her  Cabinet,  and,  till  the  hour  of  Darnley's  death 
(February  10,  1567),  Mary's  Catholic  friends  were  pressing  on  her 
the  destruction  of  her  Ministers,  while  her  Protestant  Ministers  were 
arranging  the  murder  of  her  husband.     Such,  in  brief,  is  the  result 


158  SECRET   CONSPIRINGS   (FEBRUARY    1566). 

of  Father  Pollen's  recent  researches  ("Papal  Negotiations  with  Queen 
Mary"),  though  perhaps  "discourting,"  not  death,  would  have  sufficed. 

In  February  1566  matters  hurried  to  their  extraordinary  conclu- 
sion. Darnley,  early  in  the  month,  was  observed  to  be  unusually 
devout  as  a  Catholic;  Maitland  of  Lethington  as  a  Protestant. 
Bothwell  was  "the  stoutest  but  worst  thought  of"  champion  of  the 
Kirk.  But  on  February  4  Rambouillet  arrived  from  France  to  in- 
vest Darnley  with  the  Order  of  St  Michael.  A  heraldic  question 
arose.  Was  Darnley  (who  had  not  yet  received  the  crown  matri- 
monial) to  use  the  arms  of  Scotland?  "The  queen  bade  give  him 
only  his  due."  ^'*  This  chagrin  must  have  been  inflicted  between 
February  4  and  February  10.  Now  "about  February  10  the  king" 
(Darnley)  "  sent  his  dear  friend  and  cousin  George  Douglas,  son  " 
(bastard)  "  to  his  uncle,  Archibald  Douglas,  Earl  of  Angus,  and 
declared  unto  Lord  Ruthven  how  that  David"  (Riccio)  "abused 
the  king  in  many  sorts,  and  staid  the  queen's  majesty  from  giving 
him  the  crown  matrimonial  of  Scotland,  .  .  .  besides  many  other 
wrongs,  which  the  king  could  not  bear  longer."  So  writes  Ruthven 
himself.^^ 

What  followed  was  a  Douglas  treason,  Ruthven's  first  wife  being 
a  Douglas,  sister  of  George  Douglas,  Darnley's  messenger  of  murder. 
Morton,  another  ringleader,  was  a  Douglas  also.  The  plot  did  not 
spring  merely  from  Darnley's  jealousy  of  Riccio.  Before  George 
Douglas  carried  Darnley's  words  to  Ruthven,  Randolph  (February  5) 
had  written  that  "  the  wisest  were  aiming  at  putting  all  in  hazard  " 
to  restore  Murray  and  the  exiles.'"'  The  day  before  Darnley  tried 
to  enlist  Ruthven,  Lethington  wrote  to  Cecil,  "  Mary  !  I  see  no 
certain  way  unless  we  chop  at  the  very  root :  you  know  where  it 
lieth."  *^  The  root  to  be  chopped  at  was  the  life  of  Riccio  at  least, 
if  not  of  the  queen. 

Many  currents  met  to  swell  the  stream  of  the  conspiracy.  There 
was  Darnley's  personal  jealousy  of  Riccio.  There  was  the  hatred  of 
the  nobles  for  a  favourite,  low-born  and  an  alien.  There  was  the  desire 
of  all  the  kindred  and  friends  of  Murray  and  Ochiltree  to  bring  them 
home.  There  was  the  trepidation  of  the  godly,  ever  nervous  about 
the  Kirk.  On  January  10,  1566,  the  new  Pope,  Pius  V.,  had 
written  to  Mary.  He  understood  (he  was  always  marvellously  ill- 
informed)  that  Mary  had  restored  the  ancient  faith  "throughout 
your  whole  realm."  Nothing  could  be  more  remote  from  the  truth. 
However,  a  French  envoy,  Clerneau,  was  in  Edinburgh  (January  27). 


DARNLEV'S   MURDER   COVENANT   (1566).  159 

On  January  30  Mary  and  Darnley  appointed  the  Bishop  of  Dunblane 
their  "orator"  at  Rome.  Whatever  leaked  out  of  all  this  inflamed 
the  Protestants,  The  Bishop  of  Dunblane's  real  object  was  to 
extract  money  for  Mary's  religious  purposes  from  the  Pope.  But 
only  a  portion  of  the  money  ever  reached  Mary's  hands,  in  August 
or  September  1566.  She  did  not  spend  the  coin  on  advancing  the 
Catholic  cause.  But  that  she  was  dealing  with  the  Pope  would  be 
known,  her  adherence  to  an  alleged  Catholic  league  was  asserted, 
and  so  she  had  concentrated  on  her  head  the  jealousy  of  Darnley ; 
of  the  neglected  Lethington ;  of  Morton,  who  feared  to  be  deprived 
of  the  seals  ;  of  all  the  kindred  of  Murray  and  Ochiltree  ;  of  Lennox, 
who,  in  disgrace,  lived  apart  in  Glasgow,  and  longed  to  see  his  son, 
Darnley,  king  indeed ;  and,  above  all,  Mary  had  alarmed  the  Kirk 
and  the  Brethren.  To  defend  her  she  had  only  Bothwell  and 
Huntly ;  and  she  was  marrying  Huntly's  sister,  Lady  Jane,  to 
Bothwell.  The  young  lady  was  in  love  with  Ogilvy  of  Boyne, 
but  she  had  to  yield  to  the  Border  lord,  who,  after  marriage,  won 
her  heart.^^ 

Here,  then,  began  the  conspiracy  to  murder  Riccio,  and  the 
reason  of  Darnley's  wrath  is  obvious.  The  wretched  creature  added 
to  his  grievances  about  his  shadow  of  ro3'alty  the  incredible  state- 
ment that  Mary  was  Riccio's  mistress,  a  charge  which  is  not  to  be 
accepted  on  the  word  of  the  angry  boy,  who  had  another  cause  of 
offence.  Ruthven  declares  that,  when  consulted  (February  10),  he 
held  aloof  till  about  February  20,  distrusting  Darnley.  None  the 
less,  on  February  1 3  Randolph  wrote  to  Leicester  thus :  The 
queen,  he  said,  hates  Darnley  and  all  his  kin.  Darnley  knows 
that  she  is  an  adulteress.  Riccio  is  to  be  slain  within  ten  days. 
Things  are  intended  against  Mary's  own  person. ^^  Darnley  now 
began  to  screw  his  courage  to  the  sticking-point  by  hard  drinking. 
He  took  to  whisky,  aqua  cof/iposiia,  intoxicated  the  young  French- 
men who  came  with  Rambouillet,  was  drunk  and  insolent  to  Mary 
at  a  dinner  in  a  burgess's  house,  and  disgraced  himself  in  an  orgie 
at  Inchkeith,  at  least  if  we  believe  the  tattle  of  Drury.^  It  was 
with  this  devout  and  drunken  "  king  "  that  the  discontented  Lords 
now  allied  themselves  "  to  fortify  and  maintain "  the  Protestant 
religion.  Ruthven  and  George  Douglas  drew  up  bands.  On  one 
side  they  were  to  be  signed  by  Murray,  Argyll,  Glencairn,  Rothes, 
Boyd,  Ochiltree  (father-in-law  of  Knox),  and  "other  complices." 
Darnley  signed  for  himself.      The  Lords  were  to  take  his  part  in  all 


l60  THE   GHOST   OF   DOUGLAS   TREASON. 

quarrels  "  ivith  whomsoever  it  be "  ("  lawful  and  just  quarrels  "  in 
some  copies),  including  the  queen  (?),  and  they  were  to  maintain 
Protestantism,  and  Darnley's  crown  matrimonial,  and  succession, 
thus  excluding  the  Hamiltons,  the  legal  heirs.  Darnley  was  to 
secure  them  from  the  consequences  ^^  of  whatsoever  crime,'"  and 
restore  the  banished  Lords,  Murray  and  the  rest.  Murder  is  not 
mentioned,  but  is  included  in  "whatsoever  crime." ^^ 

Meanwhile  Darnley  told  Ruthven  that  he  would  slay  Riccio 
himself,  even  in  the  queen's  chamber,  if  the  deed  was  not  hasted. 
Ruthven  thought  this  indecent,  but  named  a  day  for  Riccio's 
death,  "  though  he  would  have  him  rather  to  be  judged  by  the 
nobility."  Mary  and  Darnley  went  to  Seton  (apparently  on  March 
I  and  2  ;  Randolph  says  February  28),^"^  whence  Darnley  sent 
letters  urging  Ruthven  to  action.  In  this  interval  Ruthven  brought 
Morton  (related  to  Darnley)  and  Lindsay  (whose  wife  was  a 
Douglas),  with  others,  into  the  plot.  In  addition  to  the  leaders 
— Morton,  the  Ruthvens,  father  and  son,  Lindsay,  and  the  bas- 
tard George  Douglas — were  enrolled  Andrew  Ker  of  Faldonside  ; 
Douglas  of  Whittingham,  worthy  brother  of  the  infamous  Archibald 
Douglas  who  took  part  in  Riccio's  as  in  Darnley's  murder ;  Cock- 
burn  of  Ormistoun,  Bothwell's  old  enemy ;  Douglas  of  Lochleven ; 
Sandilands  of  Calder;  Patrick  Bellenden,  brother  to  Sir  John 
Bellenden  ;  Johnston  of  Westraw ;  James  Makgill,  later  so  notor- 
ious ;  Alexander  Ruthven,  of  a  house  later  mixed  up  in  the  Gowrie 
conspiracy  of  1600;  several  retainers  of  Lethington  ;  but  the  majority 
were  Douglases. ^^  They  were  "to  have  their  religion  established" 
"  conform  to  Christ's  Book,"  says  Ruthven.  "  Conform  to  Christ's 
Book " !  The  plot  is  the  re-arisen  corpse  of  the  old  inveterate 
Douglas  treasons. 

If  we  are  to  believe  the  analysis  of  a  despatch  (dated  March  20) 
from  de  Foix,  in  London,  to  Catherine  de'  Medici, ^^  Darnley  had 
found  Mary's  door  locked,  and  been  admitted,  and  discovered  Riccio 
in  his  shirt  in  her  closet.  Possibly  this  fable  was  told  by  Darnley 
in  his  cups. 

So  the  plot  stood  in  the  first  days  of  March.  Meanwhile  Randolph 
had  been  dismissed  by  Mary  on  the  charge  of  aiding  Murray  with 
3000  crowns,  and  he  joined  Bedford  at  Berwick.  He  had  already 
(February  25)  announced  Bothwell's  marriage  to  a  sister  of  Huntly, 
and  had  reported  to  Cecil  the  bands  between  Darnley  and  the 
nobles.^^     On   March   6   Bedford   and   Randolph   wrote   to   Cecil. 


THE   SLAYING   OF   RICCIO.  l6l 

Darnley,  they  said,  was  determined  to  be  present  at  the  slaying  of 
Riccio,  insisting  on  his  adultery  with  Mary.  Besides  the  nobles 
mentioned  already,  Murray,  said  Randolph,  was  privy  to  the  plots, 
as  were  Lethington,  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange,  Randolph,  and  Bedford.^ 
On  March  8  Bedford  and  Randolph  reported  that  Murray  would 
arrive  in  Berwick  on  the  9th,  and  reach  Edinburgh  on  Sunday, 
"  But  that  which  is  intended  shall  be  executed  before  his  coming 
there."  The  stainless  Murray  had  provided  his  alibi  as  usual.  On 
March  1 1  Bedford  reported  the  death  of  Riccio.^^ 

In  the  interval  between  IMarch  6  and  the  murder,  Mary,  as  we 
saw,  had  arranged  to  reintroduce  to  Parliament  members  of  the 
Spiritual  Estate,  and  (according  to  Ruthven's  narrative)  had  herself 
named  the  Lords  of  the  Articles.  Nothing,  if  this  were  true,  could 
be  more  unconstitutional.  But,  if  we  believe  Ruthven,  her  nominees 
had  not  consented  to  the  attainder  of  Murray  and  of  his  allies.  Mr 
Froude  avers  that  Mary  "carried  her  point,"  and  cites  Knox,  but 
Knox's  continuator  does  not  exactly  say  so.  He  says  "  they  were 
still  seeking  proof,  for  there  was  no  other  way  but  that  the  queen 
would  have  them  "  (Murray  and  his  friends)  "  all  attainted,  albeit  the 
time  was  very  short;  the  12th  of  March  should  have  been  the  day, 
which  was  the  Tuesday  following."  ^^ 

There  are  many  accounts  of  the  murder  of  Riccio.-^^  In  the 
evening  of  March  9,  about  eight  o'clock,  Morton  was  to  enter  the 
chief  room  of  Mary's  suite  by  the  great  stair  and  gallery  of  Holyrood. 
Darnley  and  Anthony  Standen,  with  Ruthven,  George  Douglas,  and 
another  (Morton  later  made  George  Bishop  of  Moray),  invaded  the 
queen's  boudoir  by  way  of  the  privy  staircase  from  Darnley's  own 
room.  Mary,  Lady  Argyll,  and  Riccio  were  supping  in  the  tiny 
boudoir  :  Arthur  Erskine  was  in  attendance,  with  her  brother.  Lord 
Robert.  Darnley  entered  and  put  his  arm  round  Mary's  waist. 
Behind  him  came  the  white  face  of  the  hated  sorcerer  lord,  the 
baleful  mask  of  the  dying  Ruthven.  Ruthven  bade  Riccio  go 
forth,  and,  by  his  own  tale,  gave  a  long  account  of  the  man's  offences. 
Darnley,  says  Mary,  then  denied  that  he  knew  anything  of  this  enter- 
prise. Apparently  his  cue  was  to  have  entered  by  accident,  while 
Ruthven  had  seized  the  chance  to  follow  him.  Riccio  sheltered 
himself  behind  Mary,  "leaning  back  over  the  window."  Ruthven 
admits  that  he  himself  now  drew  his  dagger,  to  resist  Arthur  Erskine, 
Keith,  and  others.  The  crowd  of  Morton  and  his  accomplices  now 
burst  in  from  the  outer  chamber ;  the  table  was  upset.  Lady  Argyll 

VOL.    II.  L 


1 62  PARLIAxMENT   DISMISSED. 

seized  a  candle  as  it  fell ;  Ruthven  thrust  Mary  into  Darnley's  arms, 
saying  that  no  harm  was  intended  to  her.  But  Mary  declares  that 
Riccio  was  stabbed  at  over  her  shoulder,  and  that  pistols  were 
pointed  at  herself.  All  agree  that  Riccio  was  hurled  forth  of  her 
boudoir,  and,  though  Ruthven  says  he  bade  the  men  take  him  to 
Darnley's  room,  he  was  dragged  to  the  outer  chamber,  and  "  slain 
at  the  queen's  fore-door  in  the  other  chamber."  Either  the  thirst  of 
blood,  or  some  movement  below  in  the  court  by  Huntly,  Bothwell, 
Atholl,  Fleming,  and  Livingstone,  caused  the  murderers  to  give 
Riccio  short  shrift. 

Mary  says  that  Bothwell  and  the  rest  were  also  aimed  at,  and  that 
Sir  James  Balfour  was  to  be  hanged.  Probably  she  learned  this 
later  from  Darnley,  who  may  have  lied.  Ruthven,  when  Riccio  had 
been  hurled  forth,  returned  to  Mary's  room,  where  Darnley  was,  or 
met  the  pair  in  Mary's  great  chamber.  A  dispute  arose.  Darnley, 
says  Ruthven,  accused  Mary  of  too  great  familiarity  with  Riccio  since 
September  :  now  Mary  became  pregnant  in  November  :  Darnley  was 
thus  destroying  his  son's  legitimacy.  Bedford,  Lennox,  and  Ran- 
dolph make  him  date  the  sin  since  November,  or  since  the  last  Hvo 
months.  According  to  Ruthven,  Mary  cried,  "  I  shall  never  like 
well  till  I  make  you  have  as  sorrowful  a  heart  as  I  have  at  this 
present."  Ruthven  fell  into  a  chair  and  cried  for  wine,  being  sick  : 
Mary  turned  and  menaced  him  :  he  said  that  Darnley  was  the  cause, 
"which  he  confessed  to  be  true."  Outside,  there  was  a  tumult  in 
the  yard,  Bothwell  and  his  friends  were  at  sword-strokes  with  the 
murderers.  They  were  brought  to  Bothwell's  rooms,  where  Ruthven 
told  them  all ;  thence  he  went  to  Atholl's  rooms,  while  Mary  and 
Darnley  wrangled  alone.  She  charged  Darnley  with  having  impeded 
Murray's  return,  which  is  probable  enough,  especially  if  Murray  (as 
is  said)  had  bribed  Riccio  with  a  diamond.  Then  the  town  tocsin 
tolled  to  arms,  and  the  citizens  marched  by  torchlight  on  the  palace. 
Thereon  in  her  chamber  threats  of  "  cutting  her  to  collops,"  she 
says,  were  uttered.  Darnley  bade  the  burgesses  disperse,  all  was 
well.  Mary  and  Ruthven  disputed  over  an  enchanted  ring  which 
he  had  given  to  her,  and  over  her  nomination  of  the  Lords  of  the 
Articles.  How  Darnley  and  Mary  passed  the  night  is  differently 
narrated :  Bedford  and  Randolph  have  a  tale  based  on  a  misunder- 
standing of  Ruthven,  and  not  worthy  of  notice.  Atholl  withdrew  to 
his  fastnesses.  Bothwell  and  Huntly  had  escaped  by  a  window. 
Darnley  now   dismissed  the   Parliament :    it  is  Ruthven  who  says 


MARY   RECOVERS   POWER.  163 

that  his  dagger  was  found  in  Riccio's  side.  So  passed  this  night 
of  horror. 

That  jNIary  did  not  die,  considering  her  condition,  may  have 
been  a  disappointment  to  the  assassins.  In  an  age  when  palace 
floors  often  ran  with  blood,  no  ghastlier  or  more  needlessly  cruel 
deed  was  wrought  under  pretence  of  religion.  IMary  is  said,  in 
many  versions,  to  have  threatened  revenge.  Doubtless  she  medi- 
tated revenge  in  her  heart.  But  first  she  must  escape.  On  the 
morning  after  the  murder  she  got  leave  to  have  her  ladies  with 
her.  Ruthven  and  Morton  foresaw  the  result :  she  wrote  and  passed 
her  letters  through  to  Argyll,  Huntly,  Bothwell,  Atholl,  and  others. 
After  dinner  she  feared,  or  affected  to  fear,  a  miscarriage.  In  the 
evening  the  banished  Lords  arrived,  and  Mary  had  a  not  unfriendly 
interview  with  Murray.*^^  Next  day  Mary  persuaded  Darnley  that 
she  was  in  a  mood  for  general  amnesties.  Darnley  had  come  to 
calling  INIary  "a  true  princess,  and  he  would  set  his  life  for  what  she 
promised."  Articles  were  drawn  up,  which  Mary  was  to  subscribe. 
The  Lords  were  induced,  reluctantly,  to  remove  their  men  from 
the  palace.  On  Tuesday  morning  they  woke  to  find  that  the  bird 
had  flown  :  Mary  had  extracted  from  Darnley  all  that  he  knew, 
had  cajoled  him,  and  had  escaped  with  him,  by  a  secret  way, 
among  the  royal  tombs.  Lennox  avers,  in  an  unpublished  MS., 
that,  pausing  at  Riccio's  new-made  grave,  Mary  promised  Darnley 
that  "a  fatter  than  he  should  lie  as  low  ere  the  year  was  out." 
At  a  place  near  the  ruined  Abbey  of  Holyrood  Arthur  Erskine, 
Standen,  an  English  squire,  Traquair,  and  another  were  waiting 
with  horses.  Shortly  they  were  within  Dunbar,  after  a  wild  ride 
through  the  night,  and  were  safe.  In  a  few  days  Mary  had 
pardoned  and  gained  over  Glencairn  and  Rothes :  Ruthven  and 
Morton  sped  to  Berwick,  Bothwell  and  Huntly  had  joined  her  in 
force,  the  country  was  summoned  to  meet  her  in  arms,  Murray 
was  forgiven  (his  accomplices  bidding  him  act  without  regard  to 
them),  the  godly  were  filled  with  terror  and  amazement,  and 
Knox  fled  into  Ayrshire.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  discuss  his 
knowledge  of  the  conspiracy :  the  evidence  to  that  effect  is 
valueless.  Darnley  declared  his  own  entire  innocence.  In 
Bothwell  Mary  saw  her  preserver. 

Presently,  early  in  April  or  late  in  March,  Randolph  reports 
that  Mary  has  seen  Darnley's  bands  with  the  Lords. ^^  Darnley 
was    thus   at  deadly   feud    both    with    the    nobles    whom    he    had 


l64  ISOLATION   OF   DARNLEY. 

betrayed  and  with  the  vvife  whom  his  insults  had  outraged.  His 
doom  was  sealed.  Meantime  the  wretched  lad  was  reaping  the 
contempt  of  mankind.  He  had  denounced  certain  men,  whose 
guilt  was  known  to  him  alone,  and  one  of  them  was  hanged 
on  April  2.^^  Lethington,  who  had  certainly  been  in  the  plot, 
had  fled  to  Atholl  at  Dunkeld.^^  "All  that  belonged  to  Leth- 
ington is  given  to  Bothwell."  ^'^  The  lords  murderers  were  put 
to  the  horn  on  March  30,  which  they  regarded  as  highly  un- 
constitutional. The  queen  was  reconciling  all  feuds,  and  chiefly 
(ill  omen  for  Darnley)  that  between  Murray  and  Bothwell. 
Randolph  believed  that  Mary  was  sending  to  Rome  to  sue 
for  a  divorce  (April  4).  Worse  still  for  Darnley,  Joseph  Riccio, 
David's  brother,  with  an  Italian  vendetta  in  his  heart,  became 
Mary's  private  secretary.  Some  strange  secret  there  was  between 
them  as  to  diamonds  of  the  queen's :  a  romance  which  hangs 
thereon  allures  and  evades  the  most  curious  research.  On  April  26 
the  Privy  Council  accepted  sureties  for  poor,  mad,  forgotten  Arran, 
the  friend  of  Knox,  the  wooer  of  two  queens,  the  accuser  of  Both- 
well.  He  was  to  dwell  in  Hamilton,  not  passing  beyond  a  four- 
mile  radius.*^^  He  was  suffering  from  aphasia,  and  had  to  write  what 
he  could  not  speak. ''•^  On  May  6  Darnley  wrote,  in  French,  to 
Charles  IX.  He  denied  the  rumour  accusing  him  of  Riccio's 
murder,  "lequel  j'aborre  tant."^''  Vain  falsehood!  Darnley  was 
detested,  and  rumour  said  that  he  would  fly  to  Flanders.  On  May 
16  Morton,  at  Alnwick,  reported  the  death  of  Ruthven,  "so  godly 
that  all  men  that  saw  it  did  rejoice."  ^  The  piety  of  these  men 
is  more  admirable  than  their  crimes.  Ruthven  may  have  been 
very  godly.  He  only  did  what  Knox  calls  "  a  just  act  and  most 
worthy  of  all  praise."  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  Knox 
foreknew  the  deed ;  but,  far  from  reckoning  it  discreditable  to 
the  Reformed  Church,  Knox  deemed  it  "  most  worthy  of  all 
praise."  ^^ 

As  Mary's  hour  was  approaching,  she  and  Darnley,  so  Randolph 
heard  (June  7),  were  reconciled.  She  made  her  will,  and  left,  said 
her  accusers  later,  nothing  to  her  husband.  The  will  is  not  known 
to  exist,  but  an  inventory  of  her  personal  jewels  was  discovered  in 
1854.  Many  bequests  are  therein  made  to  Darnley,  including  her 
wedding-ring.''^'^  The  contempt  into  which  Darnley  had  fallen,  the 
hatred  which  pursued  him,  were  infinite.  If  he  had  an  ally  for  a 
week,   it  was   Bothwell.      "  Murray  and  Argyll,"  wrote  Randolph, 


BIRTH   OF  JAMES   VI,   (1566).     '  165 

have  "  such  misliking  of  their  king  as  never  was  more  of  man " 
(May  13).''^  Claude  Nau,  Mary's  secretary,  inspired  by  her,  says 
that  Huntly  and  Bothwell  urged  Darnley  to  ruin  Murray,  and 
Lethington,  who  was  unpardoned  and  in  hiding.  Morton,  in  a 
letter  from  his  English  exile,  corroborates  Nau.  Bothwell  and 
Darnley  were  trying  to  bring  home  the  murderer,  George  Douglas, 
to  implicate  Murray  in  the  outrage  of  Holyrood.  "  The  queen 
likes  nothing  their  desire,"  adds  Morton."^  We  must  observe  that 
though  Bothwell,  who  had  organised  a  guard  of  musketeers  for  the 
queen,  was  now  high  in  favour,  Mary  was  working  in  unison  with 
Murray.  She  protected  him  from  Bothwell  and  Darnley ;  despite 
Bothwell's  fury  she  restored  Lethington  (Murray  siding  with  her) 
to  favour ;  she  would  not  let  Bothwell  lodge  in  the  castle  while  she 
lay  in  child-bed,  but  admitted  Murray,  Mar,  Atholl,  and  Argyll."^ 
Though  the  jealous  complained  of  Bothwell's  favour  with  the  queen, 
history  proves  that  at  this  period  she  invariably  took  Murray's  side 
when  Murray  and  Bothwell  differed  in  opinion. 

Not  in  the  blood-stained  chambers  of  Holyrood,  but  in  Scotland's 
securest  place,  within  the  walls  of  the  Castle  of  the  Maiden,  did 
Mary  give  birth  to  her  son.  Sir  James  Melville  had  been  waiting, 
with  horses  saddled.  On  Wednesday,  June  19,  he  was  told  the 
news  by  Mary  Beaton  (herself  now  a  bride),  and  he  galloped  out  of 
the  gates  to  London.  On  Sunday  he  carried  in  the  tidings  :  Cecil 
told  Elizabeth,  and  she  moaned  that  "  the  Queen  of  Scotland  was 
lighter  of  a  fair  son,  while  she  was  but  a  barren  stock."  But  Eliza- 
beth (June  13)  had  wished  Mary  "brief  pain  and  happy  hour"  in 
accents  that,  for  once,  seem  to  ring  true.  Elizabeth's  heir  was  born 
at  last,  though  scarce  acknowledged  till  her  awful  hour  of  haunted 
death.  By  June  24  an  envoy  of  Elizabeth's,  Killigrew,  reported  on 
affairs  in  Edinburgh.  Matters  and  men  were  "uncertain  and  dis- 
quieted." Bothwell  was  in  one  of  his  Liddesdale  holds,  not  liking 
the  junction  of  Mar,  Murray,  Atholl,  and  Argyll.  Lethington  had 
been  bound  for  Flanders,  but  retired  to  Argyll,  as  Bothwell,  the 
High  Admiral,  had  vessels  watching  for  him  on  the  seas.  Sir  James 
Balfour  was  being  superseded  by  Lesley,  Bishop  of  Ross,  the 
historian."* 

About  June  25  the  General  Assembly  met :  it  was  the  usual  date, 
and  they  complained  of  unpaid  stipends.'''^  Poor  Paul  Methven 
(who,  we  know,  had  an  ancient  woman  to  wife,  and  preferred  a 
younger  lady)  was  bidden  to  appear,  bareheaded,  barefooted,  and  in 


i66  "darxlev  threatens  Murray. 

sackcloth,  and  stand  a  penitent  at  St  Giles',  also  at  Jedburgh  and 
Dundee.  Paul  persevered,  though  reluctantly,  in  penance  at  St 
Giles'  and  at  Jedburgh,  but  at  Dundee  he  could  endure  it  no 
longer  and  returned  to  England.  Bothwell  ceased  to  go  to  sermon ; 
Cassilis  turned  Presbyterian ;  and  Murray  and  Killigrew  desired 
Cecil's  and  Leicester's  presence,  "which  would  do  much  good  to 
religion."  The  good  that  Leicester  could  do  religion  is  inconspic- 
uous. It  Avas  desired  that  he  should  attend  the  royal  child's 
baptism,  but  that  ceremony  was  long  deferred. 

Mary,  early  in  August,  wished  to  reconcile  Murray,  Bothwell,  and 
Lethington,  and  hoped  to  do  so  at  Stirling  on  the  24th.  In  the  last 
days  of  July  she  had  gone  to  Alloa,  where  Buchanan  reports  licentious 
froUcs  and  harshness  to  Darnley.  Mary  may  have  gone  secretly  to 
Alloa  to  escape  Damley's  company :  she  fared  by  water  up  the 
Forth,  Buchanan  says,  with  Bothwell  and  his  *'  pirates."  She 
resided,  Nau  tells  us,  with  the  Earl  of  Mar,  and  the  Mars  were 
always  relatively  reputable,  for  Scottish  nobles  of  the  age.  Len- 
nox avers  that  Mary  disported  herself  at  Stirling  "  in  most  un- 
comely manner,  arrayed  in  homely  sort,  dancing  about  the 
market-place  of  the  town."  Probably  there  was  some  folks- 
festival  (there  is  one  still  at  Queensferry,  men  going  about 
arrayed  in  flowers)  at  that  date.""^  We  know  that  the  queen  held 
a  meeting  of  the  Privy  Council  at  Alloa  (July  28).  The  lawless 
feuds  of  the  age  were  denounced.  Darnley  and  Mary  declared 
that  they  were  about  to  make  progresses  through  the  realm,  be- 
ginning with  the  Borders.  The  lieges  were  ordered  to  meet  their 
highnesses,  in  arms,  and  with  provisions  for  fifteen  days,  at  Peebles 
on  August  13,  and  go  on  to  Jedburgh,  for  the  settling  of  the  Border. 
The  Elliots  proposed  to  skulk  on  the  English  side  during  this  raid  of 
justice.  All  this  was  arranged  at  Alloa  on  July  28;  but  the  thing 
was  postponed,  and  Mary  went  not  to  Jedburgh,  and  then  to  her 
sorrow,  till  October  8  or  gJ'' 

On  August  3  Bedford  reports  that  Mary  and  Darnley  are  separate 
at  bed  and  board,  and  that  she  concealed  her  movements  from  him, 
and  spoke  of  him  in  terms  not  to  be  repeated.  Anonymous  "  In- 
formations out  of  Scotland"  (August  15)  declare  that  Darnley  had 
threatened  to  kill  Murray,  and  that  Mary  had  reported  the  words  to 
her  brother, '="  and  informed  him  about  a  small  instalment  received 
from  the  Pope's  subsidy.  Darnley  had  been  hunting  with  Mary  in 
Meggatdale ;  the  sport  was  bad ;  he  was  brutally  insolent,  and  with- 


BOTHWELL   AND   DARNLEY.  167 

drew  from  her  company  :  in  no  company  was  he  welcome.  Mean- 
while (September  5)  Lethington  dined  at  Stirling  with  Mary  :  his 
peace  seemed  to  be  made.  Murray  and  Mary  welcomed  him  back ; 
Bothwell  fretted,  but  was  unheeded.  Lennox  she  had  not  seen 
since  the  death  of  Riccio.'^^  By  September  20  Lethington  could 
tell  Cecil  that  Mary,  in  company  with  Murray,  had  made  up  the 
feud  between  himself  and  Bothwell.^*^ 

Part  of  Mary's  business  in  Edinburgh  at  this  time  was  to  under- 
stand Exchequer  affairs.  Buchanan  avers,  in  his  *  Detection,' 
that  in  the  Exchequer  House  Mary  intrigued  so  scandalously  with 
Bothwell,  a  newly  married  man,  that  the  tale  reads  like  a  story  from' 
Boccaccio.  The  date  is  given  as  September  24  in  the  list  of  events 
called  "Cecil's  Journal." ^^  Buchanan  not  only  owed  certain  favours 
to  Mary,  and  not  only  (it  is  possible)  regarded  these  favours  as  un- 
worthy rewards  of  his  poetical  begging-letters,  but  he  was  also  a  Lennox 
man,  a  Darnleyite,  by  birth.  He  had  thus  several  reasons  for  mak- 
ing out  the  worst  case  against  Mary,  and  has  rather  harmed  his  case 
by  overstating  it.  Whatever  else  occurred  on  September  24,  the 
Privy  Council  then  summoned  loyal  lieges  of  the  Border  to  meet 
Mary  and  Darnley  at  Jedburgh  on  October  8.^"^ 

While  Buchanan  recounts  the  amorous  misdeeds  of  Mary  at 
this  time,  a  different  complexion  is  given  to  matters  by  Mary's 
Privy  Council.  Writing  to  Catherine  de'  Medici  on  October  8, 
speaking  of  "ten  or  twelve  days  ago," — that  is,  September  26  to 
28, — they  say  that  Mary  then  came  to  Edinburgh  on  public 
business  by  their  desire.  She  wanted  to  bring  Darnley ;  but  he 
preferred  to  stay  at  Stirling,  where  Lennox,  his  father,  visited 
him.  Lennox  next  wrote  to  Mary,  warning  her  that,  despite  his 
persuasions,  Darnley  had  a  ship  ready,  and  meant  to  leave  the 
country  by  Michaelmas  (September  29).  Mary  informed  the 
Council,  who  denounced  Darnley's  graceless  behaviour.  Mary, 
behaving  most  graciously,  tried  to  win  Darnley  from  his  moods, 
and  passed  the  night  with  him,  but  found  early  next  day  that  he 
was  leaving  for  Stirling.  The  Council  and  du  Croc  met  Darnley 
in  Mary's  chamber,  and  blamed  him  for  his  ingratitude  to  his 
wife  and  queen.  Neither  the  lords  nor  Mary,  si  sage  et  vertueuse, 
were  conscious  of  any  ofTence.  Mary  entreated  him  to  explain 
the  cause  of  his  anger,  but  nothing  could  be  wrung  out  of  Darn- 
ley. Later  he  wrote  to  Mary,  complaining  that  he  had  not  his 
due  honours,  and  was  shunned  by  the  lords.      Mary  replied  that 


l68  BAND    AGAINST    DARNLEY    (OCTOBER    1566). 

she  had  caused  jealousy  by  honouring  him  even  too  much,  and 
that  while  the  murderers  of  Riccio  had  entered  her  room  soidz 
son  adieii  (as  if  he  had  been  taking  leave  of  her  when  they  burst 
in),  yet  she  had  never  been  willing  to  believe  in  his  guilt.  As 
for  the  nobles,  if  he  would  not  be  amiable  he  could  not  be  loved ; 
much  less  obeyed,  to  which  the  nobles  would  not  assent.®^  We 
do  not  know  what  nobles  signed  the  letter  of  the  Privy  Council, 
but  the  Privy  Council  was  clearly  siding  with  the  queen.  It  is 
quite  certain  that  at  this  very  date  (October  1566)  all  the  lords, 
and  Murray,  signed  a  band  against  Darnley.  Murray  himself 
admits  that  he  signed  a  band  early  in  October,  and  from  other 
sources  we  know  that  the  band  bound  the  nobles  to  protect 
Mary  against  Darnley.  Him  they  never  would  obey,  as  they  also 
wrote  to  Catherine  de'  Medici.  The  band  (which  Morton  signed 
in  his  English  exile)  said  nothing  of  murdering  Darnley.  He 
was  merely  to  be  put  on  one  side  as  a  thing  without  authority.^ 
Deserted,  hated,  shunned,  conscious  of  a  formal  league  against 
him,  Darnley  "  had  a  mind  to  go  beyond  sea  in  a  sort  of  des- 
peration."^^ Mary  went  to  Jedburgh,  arriving  probably  on 
October  9  :  she  was  bent  on  the  expedition  for  justice  on  the 
Borders,  already  arranged.  Darnley  loitered  near  Edinburgh,  tak- 
ing du  Croc  into  the  confidence  of  his  chagrin  and  wounded 
pride. *^^  There  seems  to  be  truth  in  Knox's  continuator's  tale 
that  Darnley  wrote  to  the  Pope,  the  King  of  Spain,  and  the 
King  of  France,  complaining  that  Mary  neglected  the  Catholic 
cause.^'^  Mary  knew  this,  and  was  the  more  annoyed,  as  she 
was  trying  to  induce  the  Pope's  nuncio,  Laureo,  to  bring  over 
the  long-delayed  papal  subsidy,  many  thousands  of  crowns  of 
gold.  But  Darnley,  anxious  to  be  a  king  indeed,  thought  to 
gain  his  desire  by  winning  over  Mary's  Catholic  allies. 

There  was  now,  and  was  to  be,  slight  question  of  restoring 
Catholicism,  or  of  striving  for  freedom  of  conscience.  The  day  of 
Mary's  policy,  so  long  prepared,  so  astutely  and  vigorously  fol- 
lowed, was  over :  the  day  of  passion  had  begun.  "  Had  begun," 
we  infer  it  from  Mary's  later  conduct,  for  the  scandalous  tales  of 
her  debauchery,  told  by  Buchanan,  are  of  doubtful  authority.  One 
thing  is  certain  :  Bothwell  was  no  stupid  Border  ruffian  merely, 
but  a  man  of  courtly  accomplishments  and  of  letters.  Two  of 
his  books,  French  treatises  and  translations  on  history  and  mili- 
tary matters,  remain  to  attest  at  once  his  love  of  reading  and  his 


MARY   VISITS    BOTHWELL    AT   HERMITAGE.  169 

taste  in  bookbinding.  Familiar  with  the  Court  and  the  wits  of 
France,  he  wrote  French  well,  in  the  new  Roman  hand — elegant, 
firm,  and  clear.  At  Carberry,  later,  du  Croc  admired  in  him  "a 
great  captain,"  who  could  gaily  quote  an  appropriate  classical 
anecdote.  He  was  young,  handsome,  reckless ;  he  had  been 
loyal  in  Mary's  utmost  need,  and  he  had  the  Byronic  charm  of 
a  reputation  for  mysterious  guilt.  Such  a  wooer  needed  no  magic 
spells. 

From  this  point  history  becomes  a  mere  criminal  trial,  wrangled 
over  by  prejudice,  and  confused  by  dubious  evidence.  From  the 
contemporary  Buchanan  and  Blackwood,  to  Froude  and  Skelton, 
Schiern  and  Bresslau,  the  topic  of  Mary's  guilt  has  been  debated 
by  acute  advocates  rather  than  by  historians.  Authors  like  Buch- 
anan have  prejudiced  their  own  case  against  Mary  by  palpable 
naccuracies  and  exaggerations.  The  evidence  is  partly  derived 
from  confessions  of  men  condemned,  in  that  age  of  judicial  torture 
especially  suspicious.  Much  of  it  comes  from  partisan  statements : 
much  from  the  disputed  "  Casket  letters,"  attributed  to  Mary.  But 
while  documents  are  disputable,  and  while  the  counsel  against 
Mary  damage  their  own  cause  by  their  handling  of  papers,  the 
whole  series  of  events  begins  to  be  conclusive  against  Mary's 
innocence.  On  almost  every  individual  fact  a  fight  may  be  made 
by  the  advocates  of  the  queen.  Each  single  damning  event  may 
be  plausibly  contested  or  explained  away.  But  the  whole  sway  and 
stream  of  occurrences  moves  steadily  in  favour  of  but  one  con- 
clusion,— that  Mary  was  at  the  very  least  conscious  of,  and  was  to 
the  highest  degree  of  probability  an  active  agent  in,  her  husband's 
murder.  It  is  necessary,  though  tedious,  to  follow  dates  with  as 
much  precision  as  possible.  The  paper  called  "  Cecil's  Journal,"  or 
"  Murray's  Diary,"  used  by  Cecil  in  the  pseudo-trial  of  the  queen, 
was  a  statement  (far  from  accurate)  of  the  case  for  the  prosecution. 
It  gives  the  wounding  of  Bothwell  by  a  Border  reiver  on  October  7. 
On  October  8  "the  queen  was  advertised,"  and  hasted  from  Jed- 
burgh, and  from  thence  to  the  Hermitage,  and  contracted  her 
sickness.^^  Against  this  date  of  Mary's  journey  on  the  8th  we 
have  a  letter  of  hers  to  the  Pope,  dated  Edinburgh,  October  9.^^ 
The  '  Diurnal '  makes  Mary  leave  Edinburgh  on  October  7,  to 
hold  the  court  of  justice  "  which  was  proclaimed  to  be  held  at 
Jedburgh  on  the  eighth  day "  of  the  same  month.°*^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  headlong  Buchanan,  in  his  '  Detection,' 


I70  MARY'S    ILLNESS    AT   JEDBURGH. 

makes  Mary  speed  from  Borthwick  to  Hermitage  as  soon  as  she 
heard  of  Bothwell's  wound.  This  is  given  up  by  all  writers : 
Mary  was  at  Jedburgh  for  about  a  week  before  (on  October  15, 
says  the  '  Diurnal ')  she  rode  to  Hermitage  to  see  her  wounded 
officer.  There  was  no  frenzied  haste  :  the  journey,  however,  was 
long,  difficult,  and  dangerous.  Buchanan  makes  Mary  ride  to 
Hermitage  with  ruffians.  If  so,  Murray  was  one  of  them.'-*^ 
Mary's  health  had  never  been  sound :  she  now  fell  into  a  dan- 
gerous illness  on  October  17.  On  the  23rd  the  Council  — 
Huntly  (Chancellor),  Murray,  Atholl,  and  Lethington  —  reported 
to  Archbishop  Beaton  ;  on  the  24th  du  Croc  wrote  to  the  same 
diplomatist,  "The  King"  (Darnley)  "is  at  Glasgow,  and  has  not 
come  here.  It  is  certain  he  has  been  told  of  the  facts,  and  has 
had  time  to  come  if  he  chose:  I  cannot  excuse  him."^^  But, 
according  to  the  '  Diurnal,'  Darnley  hastened  to  Jedburgh  as  soon 
as  he  heard  the  bad  news,  arrived  on  October  28,  "was  not  so 
well  entertained  as  he  ought  to  have  been,"  and  returned  on 
October  29  to  Edinburgh,  and  so  to  Stirling.^^  Meanwhile 
Bothwell  had  been  carried  to  Jedburgh,  to  recover  from  his 
wounds.  On  the  25th  he  was  able  to  attend  a  Privy  Council. 
Buchanan  speaks  here  of  his  "  guilty  intercourse "  with  Mary,  a 
thing  not  very  plausible  in  their  circumstances.'^* 

About  November  10  Mary,  having  recovered,  made  a  progress  by 
Kelso,  Hume  Castle,  Berwick,  and  Dunbar,  reaching  Craigmillar 
Castle,  near  Edinburgh,  about  November  24.  Darnley  visited  her 
somewhere  about  the  25th,  but  du  Croc  regarded  reconciliation  as 
impossible,  "  unless  God  effectually  put  to  his  hand."  Darnley 
would  not  humble  himself:  INIary  could  not  see  him  speak  to 
any  lord  without  jealousy.^^  Mary  was  often  heard  to  wish  for 
death. 

Now  occurs  the  evidence  of  a  document  constantly  cited  as 
"The  Protestation  of  Huntly  and  Argyll."  It  is  not  contem- 
porary with  the  events,  nor  is  it  signed.  Says  Dr  Hay  Fleming, 
"  It  was  drawn  up  by  Lord  Boyd's  advice,  '  conforme  to  the 
Declaratioun '  Huntly  had  made  to  Bishop  Lesley,  and  was  sent  by 
Mary  from  Bolton  on  January  5,  1568-69,  to  Huntly,  with  a  letter 
directing  him  and  Argyll  to  subscribe ;  but  leaving  it  to  their  dis- 
cretion '  to  eik  and  pair '  (add  or  subtract)  '  as  they  thought  most 
necessary,  before  returning  it  to  her  signed  and  sealed.'  The  paper 
was  intercepted  by  Cecil,  and  never  reached  Huntly  and  Argyll,"  ^^ 


THE   CRATGMILLAR   CONFERENCE.  I7I 

An  unsigned  document,  to  be  altered  at  pleasure  by  the  sub- 
scribers, who  never  had  a  chance  to  subscribe,  is  poor  evidence. 
It  avers  that  Murray  and  Lethington,  at  Craigmillar,  aroused  Argyll 
from  bed.  They  pointed  out  that  Murray  ought  in  honour  to 
secure  the  return  of  Morton.  The  best  plan  of  winning  Mary's 
assent  would  be  to  find  a  mode  of  divorce  between  her  and 
Darnley.  Argyll  saw  no  way  to  it ;  Lethington  promised  to  dis- 
cover a  means  if  Murray  and  Huntly  would  merely  look  on  "  and 
not  be  offended  thereat."  Huntly  was  brought,  he  and  Argyll 
were  promised  full  restoration  to  lands  and  offices,  all  four  men 
added  Bothwell  to  their  number,  and  visited  the  queen.  To  her 
they  promised  "to  make  divorce"  without  her  intervention.  Mary 
said  she  would  consent  to  a  lawful  divorce,  if  not  prejudicial  to 
her  son's  legitimacy.  Bothwell  consoled  her  on  that  head,  but 
Mary  suggested  that  she  should  retire  to  France.  Lethington  then, 
in  ambiguous  terms,  said  that  a  way  would  be  found,  "  and  albeit 
that  my  Lord  of  Murray  be  little  less  scrupulous  for  a  Protestant 
than  your  Grace  is  for  a  Papist,  I  am  assured  he  will  look  through 
his  fingers  thereto,  and  will  behold  our  doings,  saying  nothing  to 
the  same."  Mary  answered,  "  I  will  that  ye  do  nothing  whereby 
any  spot  may  be  laid  to  my  honour  and  conscience,  and  therefore 
I  pray  you  rather  let  the  matter  be  as  it  is,  abiding  till  God  of  his 
goodness  put  remedy  thereto  ;  lest  ye,  believing  to  do  me  service, 
may  possibly  turn  to  my  hurt  and  displeasure."  Lethington 
answered,  "  Let  us  guide  the  matter  amongst  us,  and  your  Grace 
shall  see  nothing  but  good,  and  approved  by  Parliament." 

Much  criticism  has  been  bestowed,  to  no  purpose,  on  these 
statements.^  They  are  corroborated  by  a  real  manifesto  of  Mary's 
party,  signed  by  Huntly  and  Argyll,  in  September  1568.  Mary, 
some  think,  consented  to  let  matters  pass,  or  did  not  refuse. 
Murray  did  not  deny  that  some  things  were  debated  at  Craig- 
millar :  he  denied  that  in  his  presence  anything  unlawful  or  dis- 
honourable was  mooted,  or  that  he  had  any  knowledge  (which  is 
not  asserted  in  the  Protestation)  of  signing  any  band.^^  Murray 
doubtless  referred  here,  not  to  the  Protestation,  but  to  what  later 
was  confessed  by  Ormiston  (not  one  of  the  Protestant  Ormistoun 
House  in  Lothian),  that  Huntly,  Argyll,  Lethington,  and  Sir  James  Bal- 
four did  sign  a  band  for  slaying  Darnley.  Hay  of  Talla  said  he  had 
seen  the  band,  subscribed  also  by  Bothwell  and  other  lords,  and 
approved  by  Mary,  and  Bothwell  told  him  (falsely,  it  would  seem) 


172  DARNLEY:    PLOT   AND   COUNTERPLOT. 

that  Morton  signed.^^  Confessions  are  not  much  to  be  trusted, 
but  nobody  accused  Murray  of  signing,  nor  does  it  appear  why 
he  denied  what  was  nowhere  alleged.  As  to  the  whole  affair, 
Buchanan  avers  that  Mary  urged  the  nobles  to  procure  a  divorce 
through  annulling  the  papal  dispensation  (which,  as  Father  Pollen 
shows,  probably  arrived  after  she  married  Darnley) ;  but  when  she 
saw  that  the  thing  would  not  pass,  "many  of  the  nobles  being 
present,"  she  meditated  murder.  By  both  versions  the  divorce 
was  discussed  :  the  Protestation  may  contain  an  unknown  element 
of  truth.  "  Of  the  truth  of  the  main  features  there  is  no  room 
for  doubt,"  says  Mr  Froude.  Mr  Froude's  statement,  from  Calder- 
wood,  that  Mary  vowed  "  she  would  put  hand  to  it  herself,"  outruns 
Buchanan  even.  Calderwood's  tale  is  that  she  "would  put  hand 
i7ito  herself,"  commit  suicide. ^°*'  It  is  a  pity  that  the  prosecution 
manages  its  case  so  badly. 

The  Craigmillar  conference,  as  heretofore  reported,  leaves  matters 
as  Maitland  put  them.  He  would  find  out  a  way,  not  illegal,  of 
getting  rid  of  Darnley.  The  Lennox  MSS.  tell  us,  vaguely,  and 
without  naming  any  authority,  what  that  way  was.  Darnley  was  to  be 
arrested,  there  were  plenty  of  grounds  for  an  arrest,  and  killed  if  he 
resisted.  Lennox  heard  of  this,  he  does  not  say  how,  and  warned 
Darnley,  who  left  Stirling,  after  the  baptism  of  his  child,  and  joined 
his  father  at  Glasgow.  Lennox  wavers  about  the  facts,  which  are 
differently  stated  in  three  different  indictments  of  Mary,  composed 
or  corrected  by  him.  Meanwhile  two  rumours  flew  about.  Accord- 
ing to  the  first,  reported  by  one  Walker,  Darnley  was  plotting  to 
seize  the  infant  prince  and  govern  in  his  name.  According  to  the 
other,  circulated  by  Hiegait,  town  clerk  of  Glasgow,  Darnley  was 
to  be  arrested.  Mary  called  the  gossips  before  the  Council  :  she 
could  find  no  consistency  in  their  stories,  and  from  a  letter  by 
Walker,  now  at  Hatfield,  we  know  that  she  had  him  committed 
to  Edinburgh  Castle. 

The  reports  added  to  Mary's  distresses  at  StirUng  during  the 
feast  for  the  baptism  of  James.  Darnley  sulked :  Mary  and  he 
quarrelled,  and  Lennox  says  that,  when  Darnley  flushed,  the  queen 
told  him  that  he  would  benefit  by  being  "a  little  daggered,  and  by 
bleeding  as  much  as  my  Lord  Bothwell  had  lately  done."  The 
French  envoy,  du  Croc,  refused  to  meet  Darnley  :  we  do  not  hear 
that  the  English  Ambassador  made  any  advances.  The  child  prince 
was  baptised,  with   Catholic  rites,  on  December   1 7  ;  a  week   later 


THE   AFFAIR   OF   HIEGAIT   (1566-1567).  173 

Morton  and  all  the  exiles  for  the  cause  of  Riccio's  death  were 
pardoned.  The  English  Ambassador,  Bedford,  interceded  for  them, 
as  did  the  French  Ambassador,  Murray,  and  Bothwell.  The  ap- 
proaching return  of  Morton  and  the  others  whom  he  had  betrayed 
probably  caused  Darnley  to  withdraw,  as  we  have  seen  he  did,  to  his 
father's  castle  at  Glasgow.  There  he  fell  ill,  but  Lennox  in  none  of 
his  papers  hints  that  Darnley  had  been  poisoned.  That  allegation 
is  made  by  Buchanan.  The  disease  was  probably  smallpox,  as  Bed- 
ford avers  ;  it  had  broken  out  at  Glasgow. -^"^  Bedford,  from  Berwick 
(January  9,  1567),  reports  that  Mary  sent  to  Darnley  her  own  physi- 
cians :  Buchanan  says  that  she  "  would  not  suffer  a  physician  to 
come  at  him." 

From  one  point  of  view,  Mary  now  took  a  most  suspicious 
step.  On  December  23  she  restored  Archbishop  Hamilton 
to  his  consistorial  jurisdiction :  this,  of  course,  that  he  might 
divorce  Bothwell  from  his  bride.  But  Knox  and  the  General 
Assembly  protested,  and  in  his  letter  of  January  9,  just  cited, 
Bedford  writes  that,  at  Murray's  request,  Mary  revoked  her  de- 
cree. Mary  had  been  staying  at  country  houses  :  with  Bothwell, 
and  for  the  worst  purposes,  say  her  accusers.  About  January  14, 
Mary,  returning  from  her  country-house  visits,  took  her  child  to 
Holyrood.  Thence,  as  she  had  done  earlier,  she  wrote,  offering 
to  visit  Darnley.  According  to  Lennox,  in  his  MS.  Indictments 
of  Mary,  he  sent  an  insulting  verbal  reply,  "  I  wish  Stirling  to 
be  Jedburgh,  and  Glasgow  to  be  the  Hermitage,  and  I  the  Earl 
Bothwell  as  I  lie  here,  and  then  I  doubt  not  but  that  she  would  be 
quickly  with  me  undesired."  From  the  mention  of  Stirling,  where 
Mary  was  on  January  2-13,  her  offer  of  a  visit  must  have  been  made 
thence  soon  after  the  beginning  of  Darnley's  illness;  and  he  must 
have  later  repented  of  his  rudeness  and  asked  for  a  visit  from  the 
queen.  On  January  20,  1567,  Mary  wrote  to  Archbishop  Beaton 
about  the  affair  of  Walker  and  Hiegait.  She  had  heard,  as  we 
saw,  from  Walker,  a  servant  of  the  Archbishop's,  that  Hiegait, 
another  of  the  Archbishop's  retainers,  was  telling  about  a  plot  of 
Darnley's  to  seize  and  crown  little  James,  and  exercise  government. 
This  was  probably  the  plot  about  which  the  Spanish  Ambassador 
in  London  warned  Beaton,  and  he  the  queen.  Hiegait  denied  all 
this  :  what  he  had  heard  was  that  Darnley  should  be  laid  in  prison. 
His  authority  was  the  Laird  of  Minto,  who  told  Lennox,  who  told 
Darnley.       As  for  Darnley,  Mary  declared  that  her  subjects  con- 


174      MARY   BRINGS    DARNLEY   TO   KIRK-O'-FIELD   (1567)- 

demned  his  behaviour  ;  and  she  would  leave  nothing  evil  for  his 
spies  to  observe  in  her  conduct. ^*^- 

Thus  nothing,  up  to  January  20,  indicated  that  Mary  had  forgiven 
Darnley,  who  had  anew  been  rude  about  her  proposed  visit  from 
Stirling.  On  the  20th  of  January,  according  to  two  contemporary 
Diaries,^°^  Mary  left  Edinburgh  for  Glasgow.  She  stayed,  in  Both- 
well's  company,  at  Lord  Livingstone's  house,  and,  according  to  Drury, 
reached  Glasgow  on  January  22.  The  paper  called  "  Cecil's  Journal," 
put  in  by  her  accusers,  makes  her  arrive  on  the  23rd.  Neither  date 
is  consistent  with  the  possible  authenticity  of  the  second  of  the  guilty 
Casket  letters,  alleged  to  have  been  written  by  Mary,  and  establish- 
ing her  crime.  But  she  may  have  reached  Glasgow  on  January  21. 
What  occurred  at  Glasgow  ?  The  evidence  rests  (i)  on  the  disputed 
Casket  letters ;  (2)  on  dying  confessions,  and  depositions  under 
torture;  (3)  on  a  disputed  deposition  of  Crawford,  a  retainer  of 
Darnley.  None  of  these  is  very  good  evidence,  and  Crawford's 
deposition  agrees  with  the  Casket  letter  No.  2  only  too  sus- 
piciously well.     (See  Appendix  A.,  "  Casket  Letters.") 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  discredit  all  these  sources,  Mary's 
conduct  after  Darnley's  death  remains  an  insoluble  enigma.  If 
she  had  a  passion,  or  a  passionate  caprice,  for  Bothwell  (as  the 
debated  evidence  declares),  all  is  clear  and  consistent  in  her  be- 
haviour. If  these  sources  of  evidence  are  absolutely  baseless,  we 
can  only  suggest  that  she  had  an  interval  of  extreme  feebleness  of 
purpose.  Briefly,  the  letters  which  she  is  alleged  to  have  written  to 
Bothwell,  the  Casket  letters,  represent  her  as  cajoling  Darnley,  dis- 
cussing with  him  such  matters  as  Hiegait's  story,  already  spoken  of, 
and  bringing  him  with  her,  as  she  did,  to  a  small  and  decaying 
religious  dwelling  hard  by  Edinburgh  wall,  the  Kirk-o'-Field.  The 
place  was  well  known  to  Bothwell — it  belonged  to  an  adherent  of 
his  ;  and  in  the  adjacent  house  of  the  Hamiltons  he  had  met  Knox, 
and  been  reconciled  to  Arran.  This  unsafe  and  unwholesome 
dwelling,  with  doors  absent  or  insecure,  would  not  have  been  chosen 
for  a  king's  residence  except  for  one  purpose.  There  must  have 
been  better  sanatoria  for  a  smallpox  patient.  Mary  was  often  with 
Darnley  in  the  following  days ;  sometimes  she  passed  the  night  in 
the  room  beneath  his,  and  she  is  said  to  have  played  music  and 
sung  in  the  warm  precincts  of  the  garden  in  the  genial  darkness 
of  a  Scottish  February.  Darnley  at  this  time  wrote  a  happy  and 
reassuring  letter  to  Lennox,  inserted  in  the  Lennox  MSS. 


MURRAY    SECURES    HIS   ALIBI.  I75 

But  he  had  grounds  of  anxiety;  for  Lennox,  at  least,  declares 
that  he  received  a  warning  from  Mary's  brother,  Lord  Robert, 
that  he  imparted  this  to  Mary,  and  that  Mary  tried  to  bring  on 
a  quarrel  between  her  brother  and  her  husband.  As  Murray  was 
present,  she  cannot  have  intended  them  to  fight,  as  is  averred. 
Early  on  the  morning  of  Sunday,  February  9,  Murray  received 
news  that  his  wife  was  ill  in  Fifeshire  :  he  went  to  comfort 
her,  and,  as  usual,  secured  his  alibi.  Mary  supped  with  the 
Bishop  of  Argyll,  going  on  to  Darnley's.  Bothwell,  with  two 
Ormistons  ;  Powrie,  his  porter ;  George  Dalgleish,  his  valet  ; 
young  Hay  of  Talla ;  and  Hepburn  of  Bowton,  carried  powder 
in  two  travelling  -  trunks,  on  a  horse's  back,  within  the  grounds 
of  Darnley's  house.  While  Mary  was  with  Darnley  on  the  first 
floor,  they  moved  the  powder  into  her  room  on  the  ground- 
floor,  by  way  of  a  door  giving  on  the  garden  (as  the  con- 
fessions of  the  accomplices  indicate),  or  stored  it  in  a  mine 
under  the  house,  according  to  another  theory  of  the  accusers. 
Bothwell  and  his  servant  Paris,  now  in  Mary's  employment,  then 
went  up  to  Darnley's  room,  when  the  queen  rose,  was  reminded 
that  she  had  promised  to  grace  the  wedding -masque  of  her 
servant,  Bastian,  at  Holyrood,  and  returned  thither  on  horseback, 
men  with  torches  walking  before  her.  The  conspirators  saw  the 
lights,  and  Bothwell  went  back  to  the  palace.  They  had  left 
Talla  and  Bowton,  they  say,  locked  up  with  the  powder  in 
Mary's  room.  Bothwell  changed  his  rich  evening  dress,  and  re- 
turned to  his  accomplices  at  Kirk-o'-Field.  Darnley,  who  was 
not  without  apprehensions,  had  sung  the  fifth  psalm  and  gone  to 
bed  :  a  page  named  Taylor  slept  in  his  room. 

What  followed  is  wrapt  in  mystery.  Long  afterwards  the  dying 
evidence  of  Morton  averred  that  Archibald  Douglas  was  on  the 
scene.  Binning,  a  servant  of  Archibald,  added  that  two  brothers 
of  Lethington,  and  representatives  of  Sir  James  Balfour,  were 
there.  That  this  was  arranged  between  the  conspirators  is  cor- 
roborated by  evidence  of  Hepburn  of  Bowton,  which  exists  in 
MS.,  but  was  suppressed  by  the  accusers  of  Mary,  among  whom 
were  Lethington  and  Morton.^"*  (The  discovery  of  this  fact 
is  due  to  Father  Ryan,  S.J.)  It  is  certain  that  about  2  a.m. 
of  February  10  Darnley's  house  was  blown  up.  His  body  and 
that  of  Taylor  were  found,  almost  uninjured  and  not  touched  by 
fire,  Darnley's  fur-lined  velvet  dressing-gown  unscathed,  in  an  ad- 


176  DEATH   OF   DARNLEY   (FEB.    lo,    1567). 

jacent  garden.  The  contemporary  opinion  unanimously  averred 
that  Darnley  had  been  strangled  or  choked,  with  his  servant,  and 
that  their  bodies  were  carried  into  the  garden.  A  large  com- 
memorative picture,  painted  for  Lennox,  represents  the  assassins 
seizing  Darnley  in  bed.  If  this  was  done,  the  accomplices  of 
Bothwell  denied  all  knowledge  of  it ;  and  though  Archbishop 
Hamilton  is  accused  (by  Buchanan)  of  sending  ruffians  to  do 
the  deed,  we  have  no  evidence  on  the  point.  Mary's  accusers 
altered  their  versions,  and  their  charges,  just  as  in  each  case 
seemed  most  convenient.^"'' 

"  Over  the  events  of  that  night,"  says  Mr  Froude,  "  a  horrible 
mist  still  hangs,  unpenetrated  and  impenetrable  for  ever."  This  is, 
indeed,  true  ;  but  Mr  Froude's  detailed  narrative  of  the  events  about 
which  so  little  is  known  must  remain  a  classical  passage  in  English 
literature.  This  great  writer  has  felt  himself  justified  in  constructing 
a  story  out  of  the  disputable  and  sometimes  self-contradictory  con- 
fessions of  the  underlings  executed  for  the  murder,  and  out  of  the 
Casket  letters,  the  epistles  which  her  accusers  declare  that  Mary 
wrote  to  Bothwell.  These  sources  of  information  are  untrustworthy. 
Many  of  the  "  pursuers  "  of  Bothwell  were  themselves  deep  in  the 
plot :  others,  their  allies,  if  personally  guiltless,  were  acquainted 
with  their  partners'  guilt.  Thus  the  confessions  of  Bothwell's 
minor  accomplices  were  garbled,  to  conceal  the  crime  of  Lething- 
ton.  Sir  James  Balfour,  and  the  Douglases,  till  the  party  of  the 
accusers  broke  up,  when  evidence  was  at  once  produced,  or  manu- 
factured, against  the  deserters.  The  chief  points  of  doubt  are, 
whether  Darnley  was  killed  by  the  explosion,  or  strangled  and 
removed  into  the  garden  before  the  explosion  occurred.  If  the 
latter  theory  be  correct  (and  it  is  that  of  the  author  of  the 
'  Diurnal,'  writing  at  the  moment,  as  well  as  of  Drury,  and  Moretta, 
the  Ambassador  of  Savoy,  and  all  contemporaries),  then  two  gangs 
were  engaged  :  Bothwell's  party,  which  blew  up  the  house ;  and 
another  party,  probably  under  Morton's  cousin,  Archibald  Douglas, 
brother  of  Douglas  of  Whittingham.  But  this  element  of  the  inquiry 
was  burked  by  the  allied  lords  under  Murray. 

Secondly,  Was  the  gunpowder  placed  in  Mary's  bedroom,  under 
that  of  Darnley,  or  "  under  the  ground,  and  corner-stones,  and 
within  the  vaults,"  as  the  indictment  against  Morton  runs  ?  This 
is  the  story  given  also  by  Buchanan  in  his  '  Detection.'  lO"  In 
this  latter  case  the  guilt   of  Mary   is   not  so   apparent   as   if  the 


"JESU!    PARIS,   HOW   BEGRIMED   YOU    ARE;"  1 77 

powder  was  placed  in  her  bedroom,  according  to  the  confession 
of  Paris  and  other  culprits.  An  interminable  historical  quarrel 
rages  around  these  questions.  The  curious  point  is  that  Buchanan 
speaks  of  a  mine,  yet  gives  two  confessions  which  allege  that  the 
powder  lay  in  Mary's  bedroom.  The  authenticity  of  the  various 
confessions  has  been  disputed.  We  may  feel  certain  that  they 
were  not  forged  in  the  mass ;  on  the  other  hand,  omissions  were 
certainly  made,  and  torture  was  certainly  applied.  The  discrep- 
ancies in  statement  are  numerous ;  but  they  are  defended  on  the 
ground  that  statements  without  discrepancies  would  be  a  proof  of 
correctness  introduced  by  collusion. 

As  an  example  of  the  methods  employed  :  the  English  edition  of 
Buchanan's  '  Detection '  contains  certain  dying  confessions  made  on 
January  3,  1568.  But  we  do  not  find  in  these  what  the  'Diurnal' 
records — namely,  Hay  of  Talla's  confession,  "  in  presence  of  the 
whole  people,"  that  Bothwell,  Huntly,  Argyll,  Lethington,  Sir  James 
Balfour,  and  others  made  a  band  for  Darnley's  death,  "  to  which  the 
queen's  grace  consented "  :  a  remark  made,  doubtless,  on  the 
strength  of  oral  information,  true  or  false,  from  Bothwell.^°^  The 
second  confession  of  Paris  (1569),  obviously  under  torture  or  fear  of 
torture,  contains  assertions  about  his  open  discussion  of  the  deed 
with  Mary  which  border  on  the  incredible.  While  the  depositions 
and  confessions  attest  the  strewing  of  the  powder  in  Mary's  bed- 
room, every  account  of  the  effects  of  the  explosion  makes  it  seem 
more  probable  that  the  powder  was  really  laid  in  the  vaults  on  which 
old  Scottish  houses  are  usually  built.  Hepburn  of  Bowton's  con- 
fession that  Bothwell,  till  within  a  day  or  two  of  the  murder,  meant 
to  slay  Darnley  "  in  the  fields,"  harmonises  ill  with  the  passages  in 
which  Paris  makes  Bothwell  examine  the  entrances  of  the  house, 
and  provide  fourteen  false  keys,  a  fortnight  before  the  explosion. 
Where  the  evidence  is  so  perplexed  and  veiled,  certainty  is  im- 
possible.^'*^ On  the  author's  mind  the  impression  that  Darnley  and 
his  page  were  strangled,  not  blown  for  many  yards  through  the  air, 
is  decidedly  the  stronger.  The  account  of  Nau,  Mary's  secretary, 
published  by  Father  Stevenson,  is  seldom  cited  here  :  it  is  what 
Mary  wished  to  be  believed.  But  Nau's  statement  that  Mary,  seeing 
Paris  after  he  had  been  at  work  with  the  powder,  exclaimed,  "  Jesu  ! 
Paris,  how  begrimed  you  are,"  has  a  natural  ring  about  it ;  and,  un- 
luckily, if  Paris  was  begrimed,  then  Mary  ought  to  have  inferred 
that  his  master,  Bothwell,   was  the  murderer. 

VOL.    II.  M 


NOTES. 


NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VII. 

^  Calendar,  ii.  190.  -  Calendar,  ii.   185-187. 

"  Keith,  iii.  228-232.  *  Keith,  ut  stipra ;  Calendar,  ii.  191-193. 

°  Knox,  ii.  497,  498.  ®  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1565,  464. 

''  Teulet,  ii.  93.     Compare  Hay  Fleming,  pp.  380,  381. 

5  Froude,  vii.  318,  319.     The  italics  are  my  own. 

^  Calendar,  ii.  202.  •'^  Teulet,  ii.  53,  54. 

"  Calendar,  ii.  207.  ^-  Teulet,  ii.  74.  ^*  Calendar,  ii.  217. 

^^  Froude,  vii.  335  ;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  vii.  480.  ^*  Froude,  vii.  338. 

'S  Bedford  to  Cecil,  For.  Cal.  Ehz.,  1565,  491.  ^"^  Calendar,  ii.  224. 

1*  Calendar,  ii.  227,  228.  ^^  Hay  Fleming,  p.  368. 

-»  Calendar,  ii.  228;  Froude,  vii.  348,  349;  Melville,  135,  136  (1827).  It 
appears  that  Mr  Froude  read  "she"  in  place  of  "he"  in  the  official  report. 
Calendar,  ii.  228,  line  25,  "  whyther  he  were  ever  privee,"  et  seq. 

-1  Knox,  ii.  513.  ~  Calendar,  ii.  217,  Cockburn  to  Cecil,  October  2. 

'^•^  Calendar,  November  8,  ii.  235.  -^  Calendar,  ii.  242, 

'■^^  Knox,  ii.  520  ;  Randolph  in  Calendar,  ii.  236-241. 

-*  Buchanan,  fol.  210.  -''  Keith,  ii.  399. 

2S  pj-ivy  Council  Register,  i.  413.  ^^  Calendar,  ii.  248. 

""  Lennox  MSS.  in  Cambridge  University  Library. 

^1  Hay  Fleming,  p.  3S2.     M'Crie,  citing  Lochleven  Papers. 

^-  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  338-343. 

^^  Labanoff,  i.  281.  ^4  Knox,  ii.  283. 

35  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  372.  ^^  Keith,  ii.  412,  413. 

^"  Forbes  Leith,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  p.  108. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  247.  '^^  Labanoff,   vii.    107. 

■*"  Hay  Fleming,  p.  380.  The  conflicting  evidence  may  be  studied  in  Dr  Hay 
Fleming's  work,  pp.  379,  380. 

^  Stevenson,  Selections,  pp.  153-159.  ^"  Froude,  vii.  369. 

■^^  Papal  Negotiations,  xxxviii-xliii. 

"'•'  Knox,  ii.  520.  ^  Keith,  iii.  260. 

^®  Goodall,  i.  274.  ^''  Bain's  Calendar,  ii.  255. 

^  See  Papal  Negotiations  with  Queen  Mary,  section  vii.,  and  the  Lennox 
Papers  (MS.)  in  'The  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart.' 

■*^  This  letter  was  in  Mr  Dawson  Turner's  Collection  :  was  printed  (twenty 
copies)  by  him  in  '  Maitland's  Narrative,'  a  very  rare  book,  and  is  cited  by  Tytler, 
vii.  23. 

^  Drury  to  Cecil,  February  16,  1565  ;    Keith,  iii.  403-405. 

^^  Keith,  ii.  261-264.  Murray  and  the  exiles  signed  in  England.  The  MS 
"  band  "  with  their  signatures  is  at  Melville  House,  in  Fife. 

^-  Calendar,  ii.  261.  ^'^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  437. 

5*  Teulet,  ii.  120. 

■^5  Calendar,  ii.  258.  ^  Calendar,  ii.  260.  ^"  Calendar,  ii.  265. 

^^  Froude,  vii.  384  ;  Knox,  ii.  520. 

^^  Bedford  and  Randolph,  in  Wright's  Elizabeth,  i.  226.  Ruthven,  in  various 
editions.  Mary  to  Beaton,  Keith,  ii.  411-423.  In  Keith  Ruthven  is  somewhat 
abridged,  iii,  260-278.     See  bibliography  in  Hay  Fleming,  pp.  387-390. 


NOTES.  179 

*"*  It  was  expected  that  Dainley  and  Mary  should  pass  the  night  together.  But 
Damley  could  not  be  roused  ;  he  may  have  been  drunk.  Compare  Bedford 
and  Randolph  in  Wright's  'Elizabeth,'  i.  229,  with  Ruthven,  Keith,  iii.  274, 
275.     Randolph  and  Bedford  have  confused  the  story. 

'^^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  p.  45.  s-  Calendar,  ii.  273. 

^^  See  a  curious  little  proof  of  Lethington's  complicity,  Calendar,  ii.  26S.  269. 
It  is  only  "case"  spelled  "caas,"  but  confirms  Randolph's  evidence. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  269,  270.  ^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  452-454. 

66  Randolph,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  May  2,  1566,  59. 

^  Calendar,  ii.  277.  ^8  Calendar,  ii.  278. 

63  Hume  Brown.  Knox,  ii.  310. 

^"  The  Inventory  was  admirably  edited  by  Joseph  Robertson,  for  the  Panna- 
tyne  Club. 

"'  Calendar,  ii.  278.  "'-  Calendar,  ii.  296. 

'^  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  pp.  73-79,  with  the  authorities. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  288,  289.  "^  Laing's  Knox,  ii.  532. 

^^  Lennox  MSS.  in  Cambridge  University  Library. 

^^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  475,  476.  ''^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  p.  118. 

"9  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  pp.  128,  129.  s"  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  p.  132. 

*i  Laing,  History  of  Scotland,  ii.  85,  ^2  p^i^vy  Council  Register,  i.  480. 

^3  Teulet,  ii.  139-146. 

*^  Laing.  ii.  331,  334;  Xau,  p.  35  ;  Bain,  Calendar,  ii.  599,  600;  Randolph, 
October  15,  1570,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  354,  355  ;  Mysteiy  of  Mary  Stuart,  pp.  87-93. 

^  Keith,  ii.  449.  ^6  Teulet,  ii.  150. 

^  Knox,  ii.  533,  534.     Compare  Hay  Fleming,  p.  415,  note  63. 

*^  Laing,  ii.  25.  ^^  Labanoff,  i.  369. 

^  Diurnal,  p.  100.  -'^  See  Hay  Fleming,  p.  416. 

^  Keith,  iii.  2S5,  2S6 ;  Papal  Negotiations,  p.  306  and  note  i. 

^^  Diurnal,  pp.  loi,  102.  "■*  Detection.     In  Anderson,  ii.  10-12. 

3^  Keith,  i.  xcvi,  December  2. 

"6  Hay  Fleming,  p.  422  ;  Anderson,  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  186. 

^  Keith,  iii.  290-294  ;  Goodall,  ii.  359. 

3*  Keith,  iii.  294.  99  Diurnal,  pp.  127,  12S. 

^"^  See  Hay  Fleming,  p.  420;  Froude,  vii.  491. 

^"1  For.  Cal.  KHz.,  1567,  p.  164;  Bain,  Calendar,  ii.  310. 

^''-  Keith,  i.  xcix,  ci.  ^"^  Birrel's  and  the  'Diurnal.' 

'"•'  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,   pp.   xiii-xviii. 

^"^  Lennox  MSS.  ;  Diurnal  ;  Birrel's  Detectio  ;  Actio  ;  Buchanan's  Historia  ; 
Labanoff,  vii.  108,  109  (version  of  Moretta,  the  Ambassador  of  Savoy);  Sir  James 
Melville,  p.  174. 

1*6  Laing,  ii.  320. 

1*7  See  also  (Septeml)er  5,  1567)  Bedford  to  Cecil,  on  Talla's  declarations. 

^"8  The  depositions  and  confessions  in  Laing  may  be  compared  with  ^L  Phillip- 
son's  curious  and  ingenious  criticism  in  '  Revue  Historique,'  xxxv-xxxvii.  Want 
of  local  knowledge  led  M,  Philippson  into  an  error  about  the  House  of  Callendar, 
Lord  Livingstone's  place,  which  he  confused  with  the  town  of  Callendar.  Mr 
Hosack's  criticisms,  in  his  '  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,'  i.  239-266,  are  also  valuable. 
New  material,  from  Lennox's  MS.S.,  is  given  in  the  autiior's  'Mysteiy  of  Mary 
Stuart.' 


l6o 


CHAPTER    VIII. 


THE    PRISONS    OF    MARY    STUART. 


1567-1568. 

An  affair  so  important  as  the  murder  of  the  queen's  husband  was 
certain  to  leak  out  before  its  execution.  INIurray  probably  knew 
what  was  being  conspired.  Morton,  before  his  execution  in  1581, 
admitted  that  Bothwell  had  tried  to  enlist  him ;  but  he  would  not 
join  without  Mary's  signed  warrant,  which  Bothwell  could  not  pro- 
cure. Overtures  were  again  made  to  him  by  Archibald  Douglas, 
his  cousin,  who  was  with  him  later,  when  the  famous  silver  casket 
with  Mary's  letters  was  broken  open  and  inspected.  Morton 
admitted  that  he  did  not  try  to  dissuade  his  cousin  from  the 
deed,  nor  cease  to  associate  with  him,  though  Archibald  was  con- 
fessedly present  on  the  scene  of  the  crime  of  Kirk-o'-Field.  Yet 
Morton  it  was  who  led  the  prosecution  of  Mary.-^  Morton  con- 
fessedly signed  a  band  to  aid  Bothwell  if  he  were  charged  with 
the  murder.  On  the  scaffold  he  exclaimed,  "  I  testify  before  God  I 
have  professed  the  evangel."  Another  of  the  murderers,  Ormiston, 
a  man  of  abominable  Ufe,  thanked  God,  for,  said  he,  "  I  am 
assured  that  I  am  one  of  His  Elect."  ^  Clearly  these  men  ex- 
pected to  be  saved  by  faith,  not  by  works.  Such  were  the  con- 
spirators, active  or  passive.  Mary's  attitude  appears  from  her 
letter,  or  the  letter  written  for  her  by  Lethington,  to  her  ambas- 
sador in  France  on  February  11.  Beaton  had  warned  her  to  look 
closely  to  her  safety,  and,  taking  the  cue,  she  thanked  him  for 
the  advice,  and  said  that  the  suspected  plot  had  partially  failed. 
She  had  lately  slept  in  Kirk-o'-Field  :  the  criminals  expected  her 
^  to  do  so  again  on  that  Sunday  night,  but  she  "  of  very  chance 
tarried  not   all   night,   by  reason   of  some   masque  at    Holyrood ; 


MARY   SUSPECTED.  l8l 

but  we  believe  that  it  was  not  chance,  but  that  God  put  it  in 
our  head."  Persons  of  both  religions  make  very  free  with  that 
awful  name.^ 

Probably  gunpowder  was  used  for  the  very  purpose  of  the  pre- 
tence that  Mary  and  the  lords  were  aimed  at  as  well  as  Darnley. 
Beaton  replied  that  it  were  better  for  her  to  lose  "  life  and  all "  than 
not  to  punish  the  crime.  Men  averred  that  "  all  was  done  by  her 
command."  She  was  now  the  common  talk  of  Europe.^  Mary  did 
not — in  her  position  she  could  not — take  the  advice  of  her  faithful 
servant.  Even  if  innocent,  what  could  she  do,  with  Bothwell, 
Argyll,  Huntly,  and  Lethington  all  concerned  in  the  plot?  As 
Beaton  predicted,  all  went  from  bad  to  worse.  The  inquiry  which 
was  begun  ceased  as  soon  as  it  became  dangerous.  No  man  durst 
earn  the  reward  which  was  offered  for  a  discovery.^  Caricatures  of 
Bothwell  and  the  queen  were  posted  on  the  walls,  and  (March  13) 
James  Murray  of  Tullibardine  was  denounced  as  the  artist  and  fled.^ 
Nocturnal  voices  denounced  the  guilty.  Mary's  mourning  was 
regarded  as  a  farce.  James  Murray  of  Tullibardine  in  vain  offered 
to  denounce  and  fight  the  culprits.  Lennox,  granted  a  trial,  accused 
Bothwell,  who  overawed  justice  as  the  friends  of  the  preachers  had 
done,  as  everybody  did,  by  a  display  of  force.  Lennox,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  not  allowed  to  bring  in  his  own  following.  Yet  even  here 
Mr  Hosack  makes  out  a  fair  forensic  defence  of  the  queen.'^ 

Lennox  asked  Elizabeth  to  back  his  petition  for  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  trial.  Elizabeth's  messenger  reached  Holyrood  on 
the  morning  of  the  "  day  of  law."  He  was  not  allowed  to  enter 
Holyrood,  and  was  insulted.  Finally,  Bothwell  took  the  letter  of 
Elizabeth  in,  but  returned  and  said  that  Mary  was  asleep.  His 
horse  (once  Darnley's)  was  brought,  he  mounted,  and  glanced  back 
at  the  palace ;  the  messenger  saw  Mary  nod  to  him  from  her 
window.^  At  the  trial  a  friend  of  Lennox,  Cunningham,  entered 
a  protest,  behaving  with  great  courage.  After  long  debate  the 
jury,  for  fear  or  favour,  and  helped  by  a  technical  error  in  the 
pleas,  acquitted  Bothwell  in  the  lack  of  evidence,  some  giving 
no  vote.^  Parliament  met  (April  14-19),  and  an  attempt  was 
made  to  conciliate  all  parties.  The  spiritual  members  sat,  and 
some  of  them  acted  as  Lords  of  the  Articles.  All  old  laws  against 
Protestantism  were  annulled,  and  holders  were  secured  in  their 
possession  of  Church  lands.  The  General  Assembly  "  obtained 
for  every  borough "  the  altarages  and   obits,  for  the  maintenance 


1 82  MURRAY    RETIRES    TO    FRANCE. 

of  ministers,  schools,  and  the  poor.^*^  Edinburgh  Castle  had  been 
taken  from  Mar,  who  received  Stirling  Castle,  where  he  protected 
the  infant  prince  as  honourably  as  he  had  acted  in  his  tenure  of 
Edinburgh  Castle.  Bothwell  got  Dunbar  Castle,  a  strong  place 
of  retreat,  with  power  of  escape  by  sea.  The  placarding  of  charges 
against  Mary  was  denounced  under  severe  penalties.  As  Kirk- 
caldy avers,  in  a  letter  to  Bedford,  that  the  queen  "caused  ratify 
the  cleansing  of  Bothwell,"  it  is  difficult  to  doubt  a  fact  not 
chronicled  in  the  public  records.^^  Many  lords,  including  Huntly, 
were  confirmed  in  their  estates,  some  of  which  Mary  might  have 
legally  resumed. -^^  Among  the  names  of  the  nobles  present  in 
Parliament  that  of  Murray  does  not  appear ;  Lethington  and  his 
kinsman,  Atholl,  are  also  absent,  which  is  strange.  On  March 
13  Murray  had  asked  Cecil,  in  haste,  for  a  safe-conduct.  Arch- 
bishop Beaton,  in  Paris,  was  just  then  warning  Mary  that  the 
Spanish  Ambassador  knew  of,  but  would  not  reveal,  another  plot 
against  her.^^  Murray  had  a  remarkable  knack  of  keeping  out  of 
the  way  when  conspiracies  were  about  to  come  to  a  head.  Just 
before  asking  Cecil  for  a  safe-conduct,  Murray  had  entertained  the 
new  English  envoy,  Killigrew,  at  dinner  (March  8).  The  other 
guests,  Argyll,  Huntly,  Bothwell,  and  Lethington,  were  all  in  the 
band  to  murder  Darnley.^*  Is  it  not  clear  that  Murray  had  no 
suspicions  as  to  the  character  of  these  designing  men  ?  The 
ardent  advocates  of  Mary  will  urge  that  she  was  as  guileless  as 
her  brother.  Bothwell  had,  indeed,  been  placarded  as  the  chief 
assassin ;  but  Murray  was  not  the  man  to  be  moved  by  anonymous 
accusations.  Things  had  even  been  said  against  himself.  Of  Mary 
his  generous  nature  entertained  no  suspicion.  Just  as  he  chose  a 
select  party  of  murderers  to  meet  the  English  envoy,  so,  before 
leaving  Scotland,  he  made  his  will,  leaving  Mary  guardian  to  his 
infant  daughter  (April  3,  1567).^^  Then  Murray  departed  on  a 
visit  to  France,   taking  England  on  the  way. 

By  making  this  opportune  jaunt  Murray  missed  a  singular  event 
— the  signing,  by  many  nobles,  of  the  Ainslie  band  advising  Mary  to 
marry  Bothwell.  To  this  band  the  signatures  were  placed,  after  a 
supper  given  by  Bothwell  at  Ainslie's  Tavern,  on  the  night  of  April 
19.  In  December  1568,  when  the  Commission  on  Mary  met  at 
Westminster,  a  copy  of  this  band  was  given  to  Cecil  by  John  Read, 
a  clerk  of  George  Buchanan,  The  signatures  were  not  appended, 
and   Cecil  himself  has   written   them   as   supplied   by   Read   from 


"AINSLIE'S  band"   (APRIL    19,  1567).  183 

memory.  Murray,  we  are  certain,  was  not  present  at  the  supper,  yet 
Read  heads  the  list  with  his  name.^^  Nothing  is  much  darker  in 
these  intrigues  than  the  truth  about  Ainslie's  band,  an  association 
for  supporting  Bothwell,  and  recommending  him  as  a  husband  to 
Mary.  When  Murray,  Morton,  and  Lethington  prosecuted  Mary 
before  the  Enghsh  commission  in  1568  they  do  not  appear,  as  a 
body,  to  have  put  in  an  official  copy  of  this  band,  at  least  not  of  the 
signatures.  Murray's  name,  as  we  saw,  is  in  the  list  supplied  by  the 
memory  of  Read,  but  Murray  was  not  even  in  the  country  on  April 
19.  Mary's  confessor  told  the  Spanish  Ambassador,  in  London,  in 
July  1567,  that  Murray  did  not  sign.^'^  There  was  for  long  a  copy 
of  the  band  in  the  Scots  College  at  Paris,  attested  by  Sir  James 
Balfour  as  authentic.  The  signatures  differ  from  those  in  Read's 
list,  and  include  Archbishop  Hamilton,  the  Bishop  of  Orkney,  and 
Lesley,  Bishop  of  Ross.  The  second  of  these  performed  in  May  the 
marriage  service  between  Mary  and  Bothwell,  yet  he  was  one  of  the 
Scottish  commissioners  who  prosecuted  the  queen,  Lesley  avers  that 
he  cannot  account  (unless  by  art  magic)  for  Mary's  conduct  in  wedding 
Bothwell.  According  to  a  MS.  of  Lethington's  son  (16 16),  Lesley 
was  a  hanger-on  at  this  time  of  the  Hepburns. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  Lethington  did  not  sign,  nor  did  his 
kinsman,  AthoU,  though  Nau,  Mary's  secretary,  avers  that  Lething- 
ton urged  her  to  the  marriage.  He  cannot  have  approved  of  it ; 
he  was  now  on  the  worst  terms  with  Bothwell.  The  lords  later 
averred  that  they  had  Mary's  warrant  for  signing ;  they  showed  it 
at  the  York  meeting,  October  1568,  but  it  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  subsequent  proceedings  at  Westminster.^^  Thus  we  know 
not  exactly  what  lords  signed  (Morton  certainly  did)  or  why. 
"  Ainslie's  band "  was  clearly  a  subject  on  which  the  God-fearing 
men  who  later  prosecuted  Mary  wished  to  say  as  little  as  possible. 
Later  they  denounced  her  for  wedding  Bothwell,  though  in  Ainslie's 
band  they  had  urged  her  to  marry  him.  Their  excuses  were, 
now  that  they  were  frightened  into  signing  by  the  musketeers 
of  the  guards,  now  that  they  had  a  warrant  for  signing  from  Mary. 
Neither  apology,  nor  both  combined,  seems  worthy  of  high- 
spirited,  sagacious,  and  deeply  religious  men.  A  more  valuable,  if 
more  subtle,  apology  is  that  of  modern  admirers  of  the  lords.  They 
had  advised  Mary  to  marry  Bothwell,  but  that  did  not  imply  that 
Bothwell  was  licensed  to  carry  her  off  by  force.  However,  they  still 
publicly  maintained  that  he  had  carried  her  off  by  force,  after  they 


1 84  BOTWWELL   ABDUCTS    MARY. 

had  professed  privately  that  they  knew  her  to  be  in  collusion  with 
him  (June  30,  1567).^^  Thus  Ainslie's  band  remained  a  stone  of 
stumbling  to  the  men  who  first  signed  it,  and  then  prosecuted  the 
queen.  On  April  20  Kirkcaldy,  giving  a  fresh  account  of  the  doings 
of  the  previous  day,  told  Bedford  that  Bothwell,  "the  night  Parlia- 
ment was  dissolved,  called  most  of  the  noblemen  to  supper,  to  desire 
their  promise  in  writing  and  consent  to  the  queen's  marriage,  which 
he  will  obtain, — for  she  has  said  she  cares  not  to  lose  France,  Eng- 
land, and  her  own  country  for  him,  and  shall  go  with  him  to  the 
world's  end  in  a  white  petticoat  ere  she  leave  him."  ~^  Kirkcaldy 
probably  did  not  hear  her  say  so,  but  her  behaviour  made  the  report 
credible  to  him.  He  says  nothing  here  about  the  employment  of 
force  and  terror  at  Ainslie's  tavern.  He  asked  whether  Elizabeth 
would  aid  his  allies  in  avenging  Darnley's  murder.  Drury  reports 
that,  on  the  night  after  Ainslie's  supper,  Bothwell's  men  mutinied  for 
pay  in  the  queen's  presence,  and  were  pacified  by  her  with  400 
crowns.  On  the  21st  (Monday)  she  went  to  Stirling  to  see  her 
child,  and  Kirkcaldy  reported  that  she  meant  to  place  him  in  Both- 
well's hands.  jNIar  was  not  the  man  to  permit  this,  if  intended. 
Drury  tells  an  absurd  tale,  that  Mary  offered  her  child  an  apple,  a 
natural  dainty  for  a  child  of  nine  months.  The  young  Solomon 
declined  the  fruit,  so  tempting  to  a  toothless  nursling ;  but  it  was 
thankfully  shared  by  a  greyhound  and  her  puppies,  which  all  in- 
continently expired.  Greyhounds  are  not  usually  fond  of  raw  apples. 
Such  are  the  legends  of  Drury  to  Mary's  disadvantage. 

The  next  event  was  the  abduction  of  Mary  by  Bothwell  on  her 
way  from  Stirling  to  Edinburgh.  Was  she  in  collusion  ?  Mr  Hosack, 
in  his  defence,  does  not  remark  on  the  circumstance  that,  if  Mary 
was  ignorant  of  the  enterprise,  many  of  her  subjects  were  not.  In- 
telligence of  the  scheme  is  given  in  a  letter  of  the  day  of  the  deed 
(April  24),  signed  "by  him  that  is  yours,  who  took  you  by  the  hand. 
At  midnight."  *  Drury  knew  the  purpose  on  the  same  day.-^  As 
early  as  April  23,  Lennox,  in  the  west,  knew,  determined  to  fly,  and 
wrote  about  the  plot  from  his  ship  to  Lady  Lennox.-^  Bothwell 
apparently  did  not  rely  on  the  Ainslie  band,  and  he,  or  Mary,  was 
in  a  hurry.      Mr  Froude  prints,   and  dates   "April   23,"  one  of  the 

*  Kirkcaldy  seems  to  write  on  April  24,  "  at  midnight,"  and  m&xt\y  foretells  the 
seizure  of  Mary.  By  midnight  of  April  24  he  must  have  known  the  fact.  He  must 
have  written,  then,  at  midnight  of  April  23.  See  Calendar,  ii.  324.  Drury, 
writing  from  Berwick  on  April  24,  had  certainly  read  Kirkcaldy's  letter. 


THE   FALL   OF   MARY.  1 85 

disputed  casket  letters,  alleged  to  have  been  written  at  this  time  by 
Mary  from  Stirling  (letter  vii.)  There  are,  in  fact,  three  letters  on 
this  subject  of  the  abduction — iii.  (viii.),  vi.,  vii.  They  express 
distrust  of  Huntly,  the  brother  of  that  wife  whom  Bothwell  was  about 
to  divorce.  There  are  difficulties  concerning  these  letters.  In  vii. 
Mary  says  that  Sutherland  is  with  her  at  Stirling,  and  many  who 
would  rather  die  than  let  her  be  taken.  We  have  no  proof  or  hint 
that  Sutherland  was  at  Stirling.  Moreover,  as  Lethington  was 
apparently  with  Mary,  why  does  she  bid  Bothwell  say  "  many  fair 
words  to  Lethington"?  Again,  letter  viii.  is  clearly  not  third  in 
order,  as  is  alleged  in  "Murray's  Diary"  of  dates  supplied  to  Cecil, 
but,  if  genuine,  was  written  at  Linlithgow  the  night  before  the 
abduction.  This  extraordinary  piece  of  euphuistic  jargon  is  dis- 
cussed in  the  author's   '  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart.' 

On  April  24,  at  some  undetermined  spot  near  Edinburgh,  Mary 
was  abducted  by  Bothwell  with  a  large  force,  and  carried  to  Dun- 
bar. Huntly  (in  collusion),  Sir  James  Melville,  and  Lethington 
were  taken  with  her.  Had  Lethington  been  aware  of  the  scheme 
he  would  not  have  been  there.  Did  Mary  know  more  than  Leth- 
ington ?  Drury  reports  that  he  would  have  been  slain  on  the  first 
night  "  if  the  queen  had  not  hindered  Huntly,  and  said  that  if 
a  hair  of  Lethington's  head  perished,  she  would  cause  him  to  forfeit 
lands,  goods,  and  life."^"  Sir  James  Melville  says  that  Lethington 
was  in  danger  from  Bothwell,  not  Huntly,  and  Lethington's  son 
{MS.  of  1 616)  gives  a  minute  account  of  how  Mary  bravely  rescued 
her  secretary.  Mary  implies,  in  a  letter  to  the  French  Court,  that 
Buthwell  actually  violated  her  person — this  as  an  excuse  for  her 
consent  to  marry  him.^*  All  this  line  of  defence  is  inconsistent 
with  Mary's  determined  courage,  as  just  proved  by  her  rescue  of 
Lethington.  It  is  the  natural  inference  that  she,  like  many  other 
women,  was  not  proof  against  the  charms  of  Bothwell,  who,  more- 
over, had  practically  saved  her  after  Riccio's  murder. 

No  man  can  record  this  opinion  without  regret.  Charm,  courage, 
kindness,  loyalty  to  friends  and  servants,  all  were  Mary's.  But  she 
fell ;  and  passion  overcame  her,  who  to  other  hostile  influences 
presented  a  heart  of  diamond.  They  who  have  followed  her 
fortunes,  cruel  in  every  change,  must  feel,  if  convinced  of  her 
passion,  an  inextinguishable  regret,  a  kind  of  vicarious  remorse,  a 
blot,  as  it  were,  on  their  personal  honour.  Not  all  earth's  rivers 
iiowing  in  one  channel  can  wash  the  stain  away.      As  in  the  tragedy 


l86  MARY    MARRIES   BOTHWELL  (MAY    15,   1567). 

of  yEschylus,  the  heroic  queen  has  sacrificed  herself,  and  the  noble 
nature  that  was  born  with  her,  to  the  love  of  the  basest  of  mankind. 
"  Strange  tragedies,"  Lethington  had  predicted,  would  follow  her 
coming  to  Scotland,  as  if  foreseeing  not  only  her,  but  his  own, 
mischance. 

Events  hurried  on  :  two  days  after  the  elopement  Kirkcaldy  told 
Bedford  that  he  must  avenge  Darnley's  death  or  leave  the  country.^^ 
Many  would  aid  him,  but  they  fear  Elizabeth.  Mary  remained  with 
Bothwell  at  Dunbar  till  May  6.  A  double  process  of  divorce  be- 
tween Bothwell  and  his  wife,  in  Catholic  and  Protestant  courts,  was 
shuffled  through.  The  Protestants  found  Bothwell  guilty  of  adultery 
with  a  maid-servant ;  the  Catholics  declared  that  the  marriage  had 
always  been  null  for  lack  of  a  dispensation,  which,  none  the  lesS) 
existed,  and  has  been  found  by  Dr  Stewart,  but  which  contains  an 
extraordinary  error  in  the  dating.-*^  The  decisions  which  set  Both- 
well  free  to  marry  were  on  May  3  and  May  7.  On  the  6th  Bothwell 
and  Mary  entered  Edinburgh  in  state.  On  May  9  their  banns  of 
marriage  were  read,  Craig,  the  preacher,  publicly  proclaiming  his 
horror  at  the  task  which  he  could  not  legally  decline.  Craig 
throughout  displayed  extraordinary  courage  :  not  many  men  dared 
to  beard  Bothwell  in  that  hour.  In  Craig  we  see  the  best  aspect  of 
the  Reformation,  austere  and  dauntless  virtue.  Mary  now  created 
Bothwell  Duke  of  Orkney ;  she  safeguarded  her  exclusive  regal 
rights  in  a  way  impossible  to  a  helpless  victim.  The  Protestant 
Bishop  of  Orkney  married  the  pair  by  the  Protestant  ceremony 
on  May  15.  For  Bothwell  Mary  temporarily  deserted  even  her 
Church.  But  few  nobles  were  present ;  du  Croc,  representing 
France,  declined  to  attend.  Already  was  Mary's  a  life  of  tears 
and  bitterness.  Bothwell  was  brutally  jealous  of  her,  saying  that  he 
thoroughly  understood  her  love  of  licence ;  she  was  still  jealous  of 
Lady  Bothwell.  On  her  wedding-day  she  told  du  Croc  that  she 
longed  to  die.  Later,  being  alone  with  Bothwell,  she  was  heard, 
says  du  Croc,  to  call  for  a  knife  to  slay  herself  2''  These  facts  may 
be  regarded  as  presumptions  in  favour  of  her  reluctance  to  marry 
Bothwell,  but  they  admit  of  another  explanation — wretchedness, 
caused  by  jealousy  on  both  sides. 

Even  before  the  marriage  (April  27)  the  lords  of  the  North, 
from  Aberdeen,  had  offered  to  rescue  Mary.  By  May  5  Drury 
announced  that  the  lords,  including  Morton,  AthoU,  and  Both- 
well's  accomplices,  were  banded  at  Stirling  in  a  scheme  to  crown 


MARY   SURRENDERS   AT   CARBERRY.  187 

little  James  VI.  Robert  Melville  added  that  France  had  offered 
to  aid  them  (for  the  purpose  of  renewing  the  old  alliance),  but  that 
they  preferred  help  from  Elizabeth.-^  Kirkcaldy  announced  their 
purpose,  to  rescue  Mary,  guard  the  child  prince,  and  avenge 
Darnley.  He  indicated  the  danger  of  a  French  alliance,  and 
wished  Murray  to  be  in  readiness  on  the  coast  of  Normandy. 
Mary  knew  her  peril:  by  May  31  Drury  reports  that  she  has 
coined  Elizabeth's  beautiful  golden  font  and  much  of  her  plate. 
Ballads  and  caricatures  against  the  queen  were  circulated.  Mary 
hastened  a  Border  expedition  for  the  purpose  of  levying  men : 
she  and  Bothwell  were  now  deserted  by  Lethington  (June  7). 
He  joined  Atholl,  and  with  him  entered  Edinburgh.  Mary  and 
Bothwell  moved  to  Borthwick  Castle,  tending  towards  a  Border 
tour,  while  Lethington  had  a  long  interview  with  Balfour  in  the  castle, 
and  detached  him  from  Bothwell.  On  the  night  of  June  10- 11 
the  hostile  lords  surrounded  Borthwick.  Bothwell  slipped  away, 
Mary  issued  a  proclamation  ;  but  on  the  night  of  June  1 1  rode 
to  join  him  on  the  road  to  Dunbar,  in  male  attire.  From  Edin- 
burgh the  lords  issued  their  proclamation  ;  they  would  rescue' Mary, 
guard  James,  and  avenge  Darnley.  They  accused  Bothwell  of  the 
murder,  many  of  them,  as  accomplices,  knowing  the  truth.  He  had 
bewitched  Mary,  they  said,  "by  unlawful  ways";  had  hypnotised 
her,  as  it  were.  Her  own  innocence  of  the  murder  was  not  dis- 
puted. ^^  The  best  account  of  what  followed  is  in  papers  sent 
to  France  by  du  Croc,  the  French  Ambassador.^^  Mary  was  clad 
in  a  short  red  petticoat,  kilted  to  the  knee.  She  marched  on  Edin- 
burgh with  Bothwell's  retainers ;  the  lords,  in  about  equal  force, 
some  1000  men,  manoeuvred  on  the  old  cock-pit  of  Scotland,  the 
banks  of  Esk,  near  the  scenes  of  Pinkie  fight  and  Prestonpans. 
Mary  occupied  Carberry  Hill  (June  15).  Du  Croc  tried  to  nego- 
tiate, but  failed,  and  retired  to  Edinburgh.  The  hostile  armies 
watched  each  other,  but  gradually  Mary's  men  slipped  away  to 
look  for  provender.  The  lords  knew  that  Mary's  force  must 
retreat  for  want  of  supplies.  Bothwell  now  sent  a  challenge  to 
single  combat :  Tullibardine  took  up  the  gage ;  Mary  denied  his 
quality.  Lindsay  offered  himself,  but  Mary  could  not  be  per- 
suaded to  let  her  lover  hazard  his  life.  The  lords'  army  now 
advanced  under  a  banner  painted  with  Darnley  dead,  and  little 
James  praying  to  heaven  for  vengeance.  The  captain  of  Inchkeith, 
a  French  officer  whose  report  du  Croc  sent  to  his  Government, 


1 88  TREACHERY  OF  LETHINGTON. 

says  that  Mary  offered  to  surrender  herself  if  Bothwell  was  not 
pursued.  James  Beaton,  writing  to  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow, 
rather  gives  the  idea  that  Mary  "  drove  time "  till  Bothwell  had  a 
start  of  two  miles.^^  Mary  herself  alleged  that  the  lords  promised 
loyalty  if  she  joined  them.^^  But  to  what  extent  the  lords  made 
promises,  which,  if  made,  were  broken,  remains  uncertain.^^  It 
certainly  seems  that,  as  regards  Bothwell,  the  lords  were  glad  to  be 
rid  of  so  compromising  a  captive.  Mary,  in  her  red  petticoat,  rode 
into  Edinburgh,  threatened  and  threatening.  She  was  lodged  in 
the  house  of  Henderson  of  Fordel,  a  Fifeshire  laird  of  her  ac- 
quaintance, the  house  being  then  occupied  by  the  Provost.  The 
rabble  howled  at  her:  she  appeared  at  the  window  dishevelled 
and  half  clad,  and  her  aspect  bred  some  pity.  She  is  reported  to 
have  written  a  love-letter  to  Bothwell,  which  was  betrayed  by  the 
bearer.  If  this  were  true,  the  letter  would  have  been  produced 
with  the  casket  letters.  But  the  story,  with  Lethington's  statement 
that,  in  conversation  with  him,  she  declined  to  abandon  Bothwell, 
gave  the  lords  an  excuse  for  holding  her  as  a  prisoner.^*  Accord- 
ing to  Melville,  Grange  resented  her  treatment :  it  was  to  him  that 
she  had  yielded  herself.  The  letter,  however,  impeded  Grange's 
desire  to  help  her.  The  circumstances  are  obscure,  but  may  partly 
account  for  Grange's  later  attitude. 

Here  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  Nau,  Mary's  secretary,  gives  an 
account  of  the  whole  circumstances  which  cannot  be  neglected. 
Mary,  when  taken  at  Carberry,  accused  Morton  of  a  hand  in 
Darnley's  murder,  and  of  this  fact  we  have  independent  evidence. 
Nau  also  alleges  that  Bothwell,  at  their  last  parting  on  the  field, 
gave  Mary  a  copy  of  the  murder  band  with  signatures.  Thus 
informed,  Mary,  on  the  day  after  Carberry  (June  i6),  accused 
Lethington  of  his  part  in  the  deed.  There  is  good  reason  to 
believe,  from  Mary's  letters  to  Sir  James  Balfour,  before  the  fall 
of  Morton  (1581),  that  Mary  did  not  possess  the  murder  band. 
But  some  document  she  had.  At  Lochleven,  in  prison,  she  was 
heard  to  say  that  she  possessed  "  that  in  black  and  white  which 
would  cause  Lethington  to  hang  by  the  neck " ;  so  a  letter  in  the 
Lennox  MSS.  declares.  Therefore,  on  June  16,  in  an  interview 
with  Lethington  (says  Nau),  she  told  him  what  she  knew  of  his 
guilt.  A  few  weeks  ago  she  had  saved  his  life  at  her  own  peril, 
placing  her  body  between  him  and  Bothwell's  dirk,  in  the  ruelle 
of  her  bedroom.     And  now  Lethington  was  the  most  cruel  of  her 


"THE   FACTS   ARE   ONLY   TOO   WELL   PROVED."         189 

captors.  As  a  fact,  she  detested  him  henceforth,  ahve  and  dead, 
as  is  proved  by  the  Memoirs  of  Nau.  Lethington  of  course  gave 
a  very  different  account  of  their  interview  on  June  16,  while  she 
was  a  prisoner  in  Edinburgh.  He  posed  as  a  man  reluctantly 
obliged  to  leave  her  cause,  but  most  anxious  to  serve  her  if  he 
could.  Nay,  he  presently  did  try  to  conciliate  her,  but  (as  Ran- 
dolph plainly  told  him  in  a  letter  of  a  later  date)  not  till  he  had 
failed  to  induce  the  lords  to  put  her  to  death.  As  she  lived,  and 
as  she  had  proof  of  his  guilt  in  Darnley's  murder,  he  was  compelled 
to  conciliate  her.  We  shall  find  that,  while  he  showed  the  casket 
letters,  privately,  to  the  English  commissioners  at  York  (October 
1568),  to  attain  a  special  end,  he  next  tried  to  shake  the  belief  of 
Norfolk  in  the  authenticity  of  the  letters,  and  opposed  their  public 
production  at  Westminster.  Once  the  letters  were  widely  known, 
Lethington  had  shot  his  bolt,  while  hers,  her  proof  of  his  guilt, 
was  in  her  quiver.  Thus  he  was  forced  into  her  service  later,  and 
died  in  it,  unforgiven.  By  this  theory,  previously  unknown  to  our 
historians,  the  strangely  tortuous  later  policy  of  Lethington  may  be 
explained.  His  ruin  was  the  signing  of  the  murder  band,  a  thing 
which  he  should  have  foreseen  to  be  hostile  to  his  interests,  as  it 
left  Mary  at  the  mercy  of  Bothwell,  his  deadly  foe.  Meanwhile, 
in  Edinburgh,  after  Carberry,  Mary  found  in  Lethington  a  measure 
of  ingratitude  which  made  him,  of  all  men,  the  most  hateful  in 
her  eyes.  He  produced,  on  the  mind  of  du  Croc,  the  impres- 
sion that  Mary  was  guilty.  "  The  mihappy  facts  are  only  too  well 
proved."  ^^ 

Later,  Mary  was  led  to  Holyrood  under  an  escort  bearing  the 
banner  painted  with  the  death  of  Darnley.  She  tried  to  send  a 
message  to  Sir  James  Balfour,  praying  him  to  keep  the  castle  for 
her,  but  that  wretch  had  been  making  his  peace  with  the  lords.  She 
begged  her  maid  to  implore  for  the  pity  and  kindness  of  Lethington, 
whom  she  had  saved  from  the  brutal  threats  of  Bothwell.  So  wrote 
James  Beaton  to  his  brother,  the  Archbishop,  in  Paris.^^  At  mid- 
night she  was  hurried  to  the  Castle  of  Lochleven,  on  the  little  island 
near  the  northern  shore  of  the  loch.  The  lord  of  the  castle  was  Sir 
William  Douglas,  half-brother  of  Mary's  own  half-brother,  the  Earl  of 
Murray.  Here,  in  the  narrow  chambers  of  the  tower  on  the  islet,  she 
could  draw  breath,  and  know  herself  deserted,  stripped  of  everything, 
insulted,  and  in  peril  of  death,  all  for  "a  little  of  dear-bought  love." 
That  Mary  parted  from  Bothwell  readily,  and  did  not  love  him,  is  the 


igo  THE   CASKET   IS   SEIZED. 

argument  of  Mi  Hosack.  What  evidence  exists  looks  contrary  to  this 
opinion.  The  lords  were  now  safe  for  the  moment.  Bothwell  had 
fled  to  Spynie,  the  castle  of  his  aged  kinsman,  the  Bishop  of  Murray, 
whence  he  retired  to  his  new  duchy,  the  Orkney  Islands.  Mary  was 
secured  in  a  prison,  where  she  soon  fascinated  Ruthven  (she  declared, 
through  Nau,  that  he  insulted  her  by  his  passion),  and  won  over  most 
of  the  dwellers  in  the  little  isle.  Ehzabeth  was  writing  severe  letters 
to  Mary,  and  threatening  the  lords  if  they  injured  her.  Presently 
she  sent  Throckmorton,  an  unwilling  envoy,  to  see  Mary,  if  possible, 
and  to  take  measures  for  her  protection.  Elizabeth  wished  the  child 
prince  to  be  conveyed  to  England ;  du  Croc  desired  that  he  might 
be  removed  to  France  :  the  lords  could  play  alternately  on  French 
and  English  ambition.  This  was  their  strength,  at  once  against  the 
queen's  party  (the  Hamiltons,  with  Argyll  and  Huntly)  and  the 
anger  of  Elizabeth.  But  their  legal  position  was  bad  :  they  were 
certainly  rebels,  and  in  danger  while  Mary  lived  and  was  uncon- 
demned.  That  she  should  die,  after  or  before  legal  condemnation, 
was  the  eager  desire  of  the  populace  and  the  preachers. 

At  this  critical  moment  (June  19-21)  Dalgleish,  a  servant  of  Both- 
•well's,  visited  the  castle,  was  arrested,  and  was  found  in  possession 
of  a  small  casket,  silver  gilt,  a  present  from  Mary  to  Bothwell.  The 
casket,  according  to  a  formal  statement  of  Morton's  before  Elizabeth's 
commissioners  in  December  1568,  was  forced  open  in  the  presence 
of  himself  and  of  many  gentlemen,  including  Lethington,  Atholl, 
Home,  and  Archibald  Douglas,  cousin  of  Morton,  and  one  of  Darn- 
ley's  murderers.^"  The  contents  of  the  coffer  were  the  celebrated 
incriminating  "  casket  letters  "  of  Mary  to  Bothwell,  her  "  sonnets," 
and  a  promise  of  marriage.  The  question  of  the  authenticity  of 
these  MSS.  is  discussed  in  an  appendix  (A).  Meanwhile,  genuine 
or  not,  they  furnished  a  secret  reserve  of  strength  to  the  lords,  as 
justifying  their  treatment  of  the  guilty  Mary.  Dalgleish's  deposition 
contains  no  word  of  the  casket,  but  this  is  unimportant.  He  could 
know  nothing  of  its  contents.^^  An  important  point  to  note,  though 
our  historians  have  overlooked  it,  is  this  :  on  June  21,  the  day  of  the 
inspection  of  the  casket  papers,  a  messenger  was  sent  post-haste,  "on 
sudden  despatch,"  by  the  lords  to  Cecil.  He  bore  a  letter  from 
Lethington,  who,  since  Bothwell  carried  him  and  Mary  off  on  April 
24,  had  not  sat  in  the  Privy  Council  :  his  name  does  not  occur  even 
in  the  list  of  June  21.  From  Lethington's  letter,  and  from  the  cir- 
cumstances, it  is  plain  that  the  messenger,  George  Douglas,  carried 


MARY  SIGNS   HER    ABDICATION.  I9I 

a  verbal  message  about  the  contents  of  the  casket  to  Cecil,  and  also 
to  Robert  Melville,  who  had  been  sent  to  London  by  Mary  and 
Bothwell  on  June  5.  He  had  also,  secretly,  carried  messages 
from  the  lords,  who  were  preparing  to  rise  in  arms.  Melville 
argued  with  Elizabeth  on  Mary's  side.  Probably  it  was  he  who 
induced  Elizabeth  to  express  to  the  Spanish  Ambassador  her  dis- 
belief in  the  authenticity  of  the  letters,  and  her  opinion  that 
Lethington  had  "  acted  badly  in  that  matter."  Nor  is  it  impos- 
sible that  Lethington  had  tampered  with  the  papers.  For  several 
days  Lethington  had  been  in  touch  with  Sir  James  Balfour,  the 
custodian  of  the  casket,  and  Randolph  accuses  Lethington  and 
Balfour  of  opening  a  small  casket  or  coffer  of  Bothwell's,  covered 
with  green  velvet  (as  we  know  that  such  coffers  usually  were), 
and  of  abstracting  the  band  for  Darnley's  murder.  They  who 
abstracted  one  paper  could  insert  or  alter  others.^^ 

As  late  as  July  21,  a  month  after  the  capture  of  the  casket,  the 
lords  still  proclaimed  that  Bothwell  had  "  treasonably  ravished  her 
majesty's  most  noble  person,"  though,  if  they  believed  the  letters, 
he  had  done  nothing  of  the  kind.'**'  Probably  they  were  keeping 
back  their  strongest  card ;  but  their  conduct  was  highly  incon- 
sistent. Presently  they  were  obliged  to  play  their  card.  By  July 
14  Throckmorton  was  in  Edinburgh,  to  save  Mary  if  he  could. 
He  found  himself  in  hard  case.  He  dared  not  attempt,  as  Eliza- 
beth desired,  to  prevent  Parliament  from  meeting  (in  December). 
Lethington  let  him  see  that  France  counterbalanced  England  at 
this  juncture.  The  general  rage'  against  Mary  was  violent.  A 
movement  of  the  Hamiltons  had  come  to  nothing :  they  really 
threatened  action,  the  ambassador  thought,  merely  to  drive  the 
lords  to  kill  Mary,  and  leave  only  her  child  between  them  and  the 
crown.  Throckmorton  and  de  Lignerolles,  the  French  envoy, 
were  not  allowed  to  visit  Mary.  She  refused  to  be  divorced  from 
Bothwell,  urging  (it  seems  truly)  that  she  was  with  child  by  him. 
The  lords  at  first  spoke  "  reverently  and  charitably  "  of  Mary  ;  but 
on  July  24  Lindsay  visited  her  at  Lochleven,  and  extorted  her 
signature  to  her  abdication,  and  to  the  appointment  of  Murray  as 
Regent,  or,  failing  him,  of  a  Council.  As  early  as  July  iS  Throck- 
morton reported  that  Mary  had  herself  proposed,  in  a  letter,  thus 
to  "  commit  the  realm  "  to  Murray,  or  to  the  same  committee."*^ 
She  did  not  even  reserve  her  nominal  queenship.  This,  if  true, 
is  curious,  and  does  not  suggest  that  threats  were  needed  on  July 


192  THROCKMORTON   SAVES   MARY. 

24,  when  the  abdication  was  signed.  Had  the  casket  letters  been 
used  to  put  pressure  on  Mary  ?  This  we  do  not  know.  Murray's 
wife  was  with  her,  on  very  friendly  terms.  On  July  25  Throck- 
morton wrote  that,  if  Mary  would  not  abdicate,  the  lords  meant 
to  charge  her  (i)  with  "tyranny"  for  not  keeping  the  laws  of  the 
illegal  Parliament  of  1560;  (2)  with  incontinency  with  Bothwell 
"and  others";  (3)  "They  mean  to  charge  her  with  the  murder  of 
her  husband,  whereof  they  say  they  have  proof  by  the  testimony 
of  her  own  handwriting  as  also  by  sufficient  witnesses."  The 
Lennox  MSS.  speak  of  witnesses  who  saw  Mary  in  male  costume 
at  her  husband's  murder.  They  were  never  produced  :  it  was  a 
fable.  The  lords  invited  Throckmorton  to  the  coronation  of  James 
VI.  at  Stirling  on  July  29.  Throckmorton  declined  to  go,  Knox 
preached,  and  the  preachers  had  already  attacked  him.*-  But  this, 
of  course,  was  not  his  motive  for  refusal.  In  his  opinion  he  had 
preserved  Mary's  life.*^ 

On  August  1 1  Murray,  who  had  taken  London  on  his  way  from 
France,  reached  Edinburgh.  On  the  15  th  he  revisited  Mary  at 
Lochleven.  He  had  not  come  too  early.'*^  Tullibardine  (appar- 
ently a  man  of  honour)  and  Lethington  separately  informed 
Throckmorton  that  envoys  had  come  from  the  Archbishop  of  St 
Andrews,  and  that  Duncan  Forbes  had  been  sent  to  the  lords  by 
Huntly.  The  queen's  party,  by  these  messengers,  promised  to  join 
the  lords  if  they  would  kill  the  queen. ^^  Murray,  after  his  arrival, 
spoke  as  bitterly  as  any  man  "  against  the  tragedy  "  of  Darnley 
"and  the  players  therein"  (August  12).  He  had,  however,  stayed 
at  Whittingham  with  the  brother  of  Archibald  Douglas,  one  of  the 
murderers,  on  his  way  to  Edinburgh.*^  He  was  "  in  great  com- 
miseration for  the  queen,  his  sister,"  though  he  knew,  and  had  told 
de  Silva,  about  her  alleged  long  murderous  letter  to  Bothwell, — a 
letter  never  produced,  for  it  is  not  letter  ii.  of  the  casket  series. '^'^ 
As  to  Murray's  dealing  with  his  sister,  Throckmorton  informed 
Elizabeth  on  August  20.  First,  Murray,  Atholl,  and  Morton 
together  met  the  queen,  who  wept,  and  drew  Murray  apart.  Murray 
spoke  in  darkling  and  ambiguous  terms.  They  had  a  later  con- 
versation, till  an  hour  after  midnight,  Murray  behaving  "like  a 
ghostly  father  rather  than  a  counsellor."  He  left  her  to  go  to  bed 
"  in  hope  of  nothing  but  God's  mercy  " — that  is,  with  a  prospect  of 
imminent  death.  Next  morning  he  promised  her  life,  and,  as  far  as 
he  could,   "the  preservation  of  her  honour."      Thereon  the    poor 


CHARACTER   OF   MURRAY.  I93 

queen  kissed  him,  and  asked  him  (it  was  her  only  chance)  to  be 
Regent.  So  he  yielded  :  he  would  take  the  regency,  and  also  take 
care  of  her  jewels.  (Some  he  sold,  others  of  the  best  he  intrusted 
to  his  wife.)  All  this  Murray  told  Throckmorton,  adding  that  the 
promise  of  life  was  conditional — and  depended  on  his  power  to 
assure  her  safety.  The  affair  was  adroitly  managed,  but  historians 
differ  as  to  the  candour  and  disinterestedness  of  Murray.*^  Mr 
Froude  speaks  of  Murray  as  "  the  one  man  in  all  the  world  who 
loved  her"  (Mary)  "as  his  father's  daughter,  who  had  no  guilt  on 
his  heart,  like  so  many  of  those  who  were  clamouring  for  her  death." 
Murray  had  guilt  enough  on  his  heart :  he  had  been  made  privy  to 
Riccio's  murder,  and  few  can  doubt  that  he  concealed  his  fore- 
knowledge of  the  plot  to  murder  Darnley.  Then  as  to  the  "  others," 
— Lethington,  Morton,  Balfl)ur,  and  the  rest,  who  were  conspirators, 
active  or  passive,  to  kill  Darnley, — what  had  Murray  to  say  to  Mary  ? 
He  warned  her  to  bear  no  "  revenge  to  the  lords  and  others  who 
had  sought  her  reformation.^''  *^  Murray  himself  actually  told  Throck- 
morton that  he  had  lectured  Mary  about  "  the  lords  who  sought  her 
reformation  "  ! 

"Thenceforth,"  says  Mr  Froude,  "she  hated  him  with  an  in- 
tensity to  which  her  past  dislike  was  pale  and  colourless."  It  is 
no  marvel  if  she  did  hate  him,  as  men  hate  Pecksniff  or  Tar- 
tuffe.  Murray  cannot  have  been  ambitious  of  the  regency,  Mr 
Froude  thinks,  because  "  a  less  tempting  prospect  to  personal 
ambition  has  been  rarely  offered."  Yet  for  the  regency,  or  the 
crown,  with  authority  over  a  poor,  fierce,  treacherous,  and  now 
hypocritical  band  of  high-born  ruffians.  Houses  and  men  were  ready 
to  brave  all  perils  and  to  attempt  all  crimes.  The  feeble  Lenno.x 
presently  grasped  at  the  same  power,  and  his  ambition  had  the  same 
end.  Much  has  been  written  about  the  character  of  Murray ;  but 
no  minutely  critical  account  of  his  life  and  character  exists.  He 
has  fascinated  some  students  ;  in  others,  not  especially  favourable 
to  Mary,  as  in  Tytler  and  Monsieur  Philippson,  he  has  excited  either 
suspicion  or  loathing.  At  this  moment,  and  during  his  regency, 
he  had  a  most  invidious  task.  His  courage  and  his  self-restraint 
have  never  been  doubted  :  his  character  was  free  from  the  sensual 
vices,  and  it  is  probable  that  his  religion  was  sincere.  In  accepting 
the  regency,  and  steering  the  State  through  perilous  passages  of 
time,  he  did  his  duty  with  patience  and  fortitude.  It  was  a  duty 
that  some  one  must  do.     But  when  he  plays  "  the  ghostly  father," — 

VOL.    II.  N 


194         MURRAY   REGENT.      BOTHWELL   IN    DENMARK. 

when  he  tells  his  sister  that  the  lords  desired  her  "  reformation," — 
we  must  regard  him  either  as  innocent  beyond  the  innocence  of 
childhood  or  as  an  accomplished  hypocrite.  He  came  to  Mary 
from  the  Council,  where  he  sat  with  men  banded  to  procure  her 
late  husband's  murder,  and  with  men  who,  knowing  that  the  deed 
was  planned,  as  he  himself  must  have  known  it,  had  cowardly  held 
their  peace.  He  himself,  on  his  passage  through  England,  had 
not  concealed  his  sister's  shame.  On  the  strength  of  a  report  of  a 
letter  of  Mary's,  a  letter  which,  as  described  by  de  Silva  from 
Murray's  report,  never  was  in  existence,  he  had  revealed  her  guilt 
(Mr  Froude  informs  us)  to  the  ambassador  of  an  "  Idolatrous  " 
Power.  This  was  the  kinsman  who,  Mr  Froude  tells  us,  assured 
her  that  "  if  possible  he  would  shield  her  reputation,  and  prevent 
the  publication  of  her  letters."  ^^ 

Mary's  own  account  of  her  interview  with  Murray,  in  Claude 
Nau,  naturally  differs  much  from  Murray's  version  to  Throck- 
morton. The  part  which  Murray  played,  in  his  private  relations 
with  his  sister,  cannot  be  made  to  appear  graceful  or  magnani- 
mous. But  he  could  not  possibly  release  her  from  prison  without 
provoking  civil  war.  Lethington  and  he  made  Throckmorton 
understand  that,  if  hard  pressed  by  Elizabeth,  they  had  no  refuge 
from  ruin  except  by  justifying  their  conduct  (with  the  aid  of  the 
casket  letters  probably)  and  proceeding  to  extremities.  Elizabeth 
might,  and  did,  intrigue  with  the  Hamiltons,  but  "  we  have  in 
our .  hands  to  make  the  accord  "  (with  the  Hamiltons)  "  when  we 
will."  Lethington  doubtless  meant  to  repeat  his  previous  state- 
ment, that  if  the  lords  put  Mary  to  death,  the  Hamiltons  would 
join  them.^^  Murray  declared  that  he  would  spend  his  life  in  the 
cause  of  reducing  all  men  to  obedience  in  the  king's  name.  He 
kept  his  promise ;  and  for  the  hour  he  saved  Scotland  from  the 
civil  war  which  Elizabeth  would  fain  have  lighted.  He  awed  the 
western  and  northern  malcontents,  and  Throckmorton  withdrew  to 
England.  Murray  then  secured  his  authority  by  prudent  measures. 
Balfour,  for  a  large  consideration,  resigned  Edinburgh  Castle,  of 
which  Kirkcaldy,  to  his  undoing,  was  appointed  captain.  He  had 
just  failed  to  catch  Bothwell  in  the  Orkney  Isles.  Dunbar  Castle, 
strongly  held  for  Bothwell,  capitulated  on  October  i.  A  few  days 
later  Bothwell  was  summoned  to  appear  at  Parliament  in  December, 
and  Sir  William  Stewart,  the  herald,  was  sent  to  Denmark  to  de- 
mand Bothwell's  extradition.     This  Stewart  was  later  burned  on  a 


MURRAY'S   PARTY   DISUNITED    (1568).  195 

charge  of  sorcery  at  St  Andrews,  doubtless,  really,  for  some  political 
reason. 

Presently  (October  28)  Drury  reported  that  INIary  was  on  too 
good  terms  with  George  Douglas,  younger  brother  of  William 
Douglas  of  Lochleven,  her  jailer.  Not  much  is  ascertained  as  to 
their  love-affair,  if  love-affair  there  was,  but  Mary  had  already  found 
and  won  the  author  of  her  deliverance.  That  the  lords  would  keep 
her  prisoner  while  they  could  was  assured  in  the  Parliament  of 
December,  when  they  acquitted  themselves  of  rebellion  by  an  Act 
announcing  that  they  had  proof  of  her  guilt  in  the  casket  letters. ^^ 
They  declined  to  allow  her  to  appear  in  person,  and  plead  her  own 
cause.  She  would  have  exposed  Morton  and  Lethington,  perhaps 
with  others. 

Before  this  Parliament  Murray  had  tried  to  restore  order  on  the 
Marches  by  hanging  and  drowning  a  number  of  rievers  at  Hawick.^^ 
The  Black  Laird  of  Ormiston,  one  of  Darnley's  murderers,  made 
his  escape.  The  severities  of  Murray,  however  needful,  did  not  in- 
crease his  popularity,  which^was  probably  still  more  diminished  by 
the  public  confession  of  Ray,  younger  of  Talla,  when  executed  for 
Darnley's  murder  on  January  3,  1568.  He  declared  that  Huntly, 
Argyll,  Lethington,  Sir  James  Balfour,  "  with  divers  other  nobles,"  had 
signed  the  band  for  Darnley's  murder,  "  whereto  the  queen's  grace 
consented,"  according  to  the  '  Diurnal.'  Public  indignation  caused 
the  men  denounced  to  leave  Edinburgh,  so  that  the  alleged  destruc- 
tion of  the  band  had  been  of  no  avail,  the  secret  was  out,  and 
Murray's  party  was  now  rent  by  internal  suspicions.^*  Moreover, 
the  intolerance  of  Murray,  in  re-enacting  the  penal  statutes  of  1560, 
helped  to  break  Scotland  into  divisions.  Catholic  noblemen  like 
AthoU  were  driven  into  the  arms  of  the  Hamiltons.  Murray's  oath, 
as  Regent,  bound  him  to  "  root  out  all  heretics  and  enemies  to  the 
true  worship  of  God,  that  shall  be  convicted  by  the  True  Kirk  of 
God  of  the  aforesaid  crimes."  ^^  But  presently  we  find  Murray 
offering  to  renew  the  ancient  league  with  idolatrous  France,  and 
offering  his  humblest  service  to  the  French  king  and  Catherine  de' 
Medici.  Murray  was  not  "a  consistent  walker." ^^  He  was  soon 
selling  Mary's  pearls  secretly  to  Elizabeth.^''  Ballads  about  the 
shielding  of  the  chief  conspirators  to  murder  Darnley,  now  members 
of  the  Government  pledged  to  avenge  Darnley,  rained  upon  the 
Regent. 

In  Lochleven  Mary  had  found  means  to  write,  and  send  letters, 


196  MARY   ESCAPES   FROM   LOCHLEVEN. 

though  rarely,  and  at  peril  of  her  life.  On  May  i  she  wrote  en- 
treating aid  from  Elizabeth  and  Catherine  de'  Medici.  She  had  no 
opportunity  save  at  the  dinner-time  of  the  Douglas  family,  "for 
their  girls  sleep  with  me."  Her  friend,  George  Douglas,  had  been 
banished  from  the  islet  after  her  failure  to  escape  (March  25)  in  the 
disguise  of  a  laundress.  Her  letters  were  sent  on  the  eve  of  her 
escape,  on  May  2.  The  romantic  details — the  stealing  of  the  keys 
by  "  little  Douglas  "  (William,  a  foundling  lad  of  seventeen) ;  the 
casting  by  him  of  the  keys  "  to  the  kelpie's  keeping  " ;  the  landing, 
under  the  protection  of  George  Douglas  ;  the  meeting  with  Both- 
well's  kinsman,  Hepburn  of  Riccartoun,  who  was  sent,  too  late,  to 
secure  Dunbar ;  the  wild  ride  to  Seton's  house  of  Longniddry,  and 
the  tryst  with  the  queen's  party  at  Hamilton — are  too  well  known  to 
need  a  minute  narrative.  If  we  believe  Claude  Nau,  the  queen's 
secretary,  the  key  was  thrown  into  the  mouth  of  a  cannon,  natheless 
the  keys  were  long  after  recovered  from  the  lake.  It  seems  probable 
that  the  lady  of  Lochleven,  Murray's  mother,  was  no  stranger  to  the 
plot. 

Murray  at  once  summoned  the  king's  party  to  meet  at  Glasgow. 
He  collected  the  forces  of  the  Protestant  lords  in  general,  though 
Argyll  was  with  Mary.  There  exists  a  curious  proclamation,  drawn 
up  by  her  or  for  her — at  all  events  it  is  attributed  to  her.  Murray 
is  referred  to  as  a  "  beastly  "  and  "  bastard  "  traitor  :  the  Hamiltons 
are  "  that  good  House  of  Hamilton."  The  language  used  about 
Lethington  is  copious  and  florid.  Yet  at  this  date  (May  6)  Leth- 
ington  and  the  other  "  beastly  traitor  "  were  reported  to  be  on  bad 
terms. ^^  Probably  the  proclamation  is  a  hoax,  or  never  was  issued, 
Dr  Hay  Fleming  publishes  a  reasonable  and  clement  proclamation 
of  May  5.^^  Willingly,  or  unwillingly  (accounts  differ),  Mary  on 
May  13  tried  the  ordeal  of  battle.  She  approached  Glasgow,  on 
her  way  to  the  strong  Castle  of  Dumbarton  ;  she  was  met  at  Lang- 
side,  and  the  tactics  of  Kirkcaldy,  the  better  discipline  of  Murray's 
men,  and  a  fit  of  epilepsy  or  cowardice  on  the  part  of  Argyll,  caused 
her  entire  defeat.  Murray  occupied  Langside  Hill,  "the  western 
division  of  Queen's  Park  "  to-day;  while  Kirkcaldy,  mounting  200 
musketeers  behind  horsemen  for  better  speed,  stationed  these  marks- 
men under  cover  in  the  cottages  and  enclosures  of  Langside  village. 
Murray  followed  with  his  infantry,  his  left  wing  extending  behind 
the  farm  of  Pathhead.  The  right  wing  held  the  village  of  Langside, 
at  the  crest   of  the   Lang   Loan.     Mary  had  been  anticipated  in 


MARY   DEFEATED   AT   LANGSIDE.  I97 

seizing  the  hill,  and  from  Clincart  Hill  there  began  an  artillery  duel. 
Under  cover  of  the  fire  the  Hamiltons,  first  passing  behind  Clincart 
Hill,  advanced  to  storm  the  village,  supported  by  the  cavalry  under 
Lord  Herries,  Warden  of  the  Western  Marches.  Drumlanrig  led 
Murray's  horse  against  Herries,  who  had  one  successful  and  one 
disastrous  charge.  Routed  by  the  archers,  Herries  could  not  aid 
the  Hamiltons,  who,  climbing  the  long  narrow  lane,  were  galled  by 
Murray's  musketeers.  Finally  the  infantry  of  both  parties  drove  at 
each  other  with  levelled  spears,  so  serried,  owing  to  the  narrow 
space,  that  the  missiles  thrown,  pistols  and  daggers,  lay  as  on  a  floor 
of  interlaced  lance-shafts.  Kirkcaldy  led  fresh  troops  from  the 
village,  charged  the  Hamiltons  on  front  and  flank,  and  drove  them 
pell-mell  downhill  on  the  queen's  main  body.  The  rout  began, 
slaughter  being  checked  by  the  activity  and  clemency  of  Murray. 
Many  prisoners  were  taken,  such  as  Seton  and  the  Masters  of 
Eglinton  and  Cassilis.  Knox's  father-in-law.  Lord  Ochiltree,  and 
his  successor  in  the  affections  of  Mrs  Knox,  Ker  of  Faldonside,  were 
severely  wounded.  From  the  Court  Knowe  of  Cathcart,  a  hundred 
yards  from  Cathcart  Castle,  Mary  probably  looked  on  at  her  own 
defeat.*^*^ 

Mary  fled  south  to  Herries's  country,  covering  sixty  miles  in  the 
first  day,  and  writing  to  Elizabeth  from  Dundrennan  on  May  15. 
She  implored  leave  to  visit  Elizabeth  at  once  :  next  day  she  most 
unadvisedly  crossed  the  Solway  to  Workington,  accompanied  by 
Herries,  George  Douglas,  and  fourteen  others.  She  had  entered 
without  a  passport  the  realm  of  her  deadliest  foe  :  the  rest  of  her 
life  was  a  long  imprisonment.  From  this  hour  Mary  became  a  kind 
of  centre  on  which  concentrated  every  wave  of  all  the  electric  forces 
of  European  politics.  Nothing  could  stir,  in  France,  Spain,  Rome, 
England,  or  Scotland,  but  it  offered  her  chances.  It  is  not  possible, 
in  our  space,  even  to  condense  the  record  of  each  of  the  hourly 
wavering  policies.  The  position  was,  and  remained,  one  of  extra- 
ordinary perplexity.  But  one  point  was  fixed,  in  Elizabeth's  name, 
from  the  first.  "  Let  none  of  them  escape  !  "^^  While  Mary  lay  in 
Carlisle,  first  under  Lowther,  then  under  Knollys,  acting  for  North- 
umberland, Cecil  drew  up  balanced  memorials  which  contain  the 
pros  and  cons  of  the  situation.  Mary  deserved  help  as  a  voluntary 
suppliant  who  had  received  many  promises  of  aid.  Her  subjects 
had  seized  and  condemned  her  unheard.  She  off"ers  to  acquit  her- 
self of  Darnley's  death  in  Elizabeth's  presence.     No  private  person 


198  ELIZABETH'S   DIPLOMACY. 

even  should  be  condemned  unheard.  She  offers  to  accuse  her  sub- 
jects.    But  she  is  guilty  of  all  the  sins  imputed  to  her.^- 

If  she  were,  we  may  say,  that  was  no  affair  to  be  judged  by 
Elizabeth.  England  was  reasserting  the  old  claim  of  Edward  I. 
to  judge  Balliol,  and  that,  of  all  things,  would  most  infuriate  the 
Scots.  Mary  was  asking  for  one  of  two  things :  a  personal  meet- 
ing with  Elizabeth,  when  she  would  exculpate  herself,  or  leave  to 
go  free  and  seek  aid  elsewhere.  It  was  highly  unjust  and  dis- 
honourable to  reject  both  pleas,  but  it  was  inevitably  expedient. 
If  set  free,  she  might  go  to  France  and  revive  the  old  claim  to 
the  English  crown,  an  offence  unexpiated  and  unforgiven.  The 
ancient  league  would  be  restored  :  French  forces  would  again  enter 
Scotland  :  Protestantism  in  both  countries  would  be  endangered. 
If  she  returned  to  Scotland,  under  whatever  limitations,  the  dangers 
to  England  were  manifest.  If  she  remained  in  England,  she  would 
make  a  party  among  the  Catholics,  and  revive  her  claim  to  the 
crown,  while  France  or  Spain  might  intervene.  Such  were  the 
three  courses ;  and  the  last  alternative,  to  keep  Mary  prisoner, 
was  resolved  upon  as  manifestly  the  least  dangerous.  But  this 
policy  might  be  less  unfavourably  coloured  by  drawing  Mary  into 
any  kind  of  suit  against  her  rebels.  Before  Elizabeth  Mary  must  not 
be  heard  in  person  :  her  subjects  must  be  heard ;  and  Mary  might 
be  so  much  discredited,  without  injuring  the  common  cause  of  royalty 
by  a  verdict  of  "Guilty,"  that  she  would  be  ruined  in  the  eyes  of 
Catholics.  But  how  was  Mary  to  be  led  into  consenting  to  any  kind 
of  trial  before  Elizabeth  ?  Clearly  by  leading  her  to  believe  that  an 
appeal  to  Elizabeth  could  only  end  in  her  restoration. 

On  May  28  she  accredited  Herries  to  Elizabeth,  and  sent 
Fleming,  in  the  hope  that  he  would  be  allowed  to  go  to  France. 
This  Elizabeth  forbade  :  Fleming  was  captain  of  Dumbarton 
Castle,  the  French  gate  to  Scotland.  As  to  Herries's  mission, 
Elizabeth  (June  8)  told  Mary  that  she  could  not  see  her  till 
her  case  was  clear.  "You  put  in  my  hands  the  handling  of  this 
business."  Now  Mary  had  only  said  (May  28)  that  she  desired 
an  interview  with  Elizabeth,  and  to  tell  her  the  truth,  "against 
all  their  lies."^^  To  Murray,  on  June  8,  Elizabeth  wrote  that 
Mary  "is  committing  the  ordering  of  her  cause  to  us."  She  then 
bade  Murray  drop  military  and  legal  proceedings  against  Mary's 
adherents,  which  he  did  not  do.  Herries  was  led  to  believe  that 
Elizabeth  "intends   to  proceed  in  my  sovereign's  cause." '^'^     One 


MARY   IS   DECEIVED.  1 99 

Middlemore  was  now  sent  to  see  Mary,  and  go  on  to  Murray.  As 
Mary  found  his  messages  dilatory  and  discouraging,  she  avowed  that 
she  "had  no  judge  but  God."  Elizabeth  was  allowing  Murray  to 
come,  as  an  accuser,  into  her  presence.  Mary,  the  accused,  she 
would  not  admit.  Mary  expressed  her  desire  to  meet  Lethington 
and  Morton,  before  Elizabeth,  face  to  face,^^  She  openly  said  that 
she  would  prove  the  guilt  of  Lethington  and  Morton  as  to  Darnley. 
Nothing  of  her  prayers  was  ever  granted  :  the  entire  proceedings 
were  a  tissue  of  duplicity  and  dishonour.  Mary's  attitude  through- 
out is  expressed  in  one  line,  "  I  have  offered  you  Westminster  Hall." 
There,  before  the  peers  of  England  and  the  foreign  ambassadors,  she 
would  retort  on  and  expose  her  guilty  accusers.  She  would  accuse 
her  rebels  face  to  face,  but  she  would  not  plead  her  own  cause  against 
them.     Yet  she  drifted  into  the  shuffling  inquiry  which  followed. 

Leaving  Carlisle,  Middlemore  joined  Murray,  who  was  persecuting 
Herries  and  Lochinvar  in  Galloway.  Murray  informed  Elizabeth 
that,  as  she  meant  to  hold  a  solemn  trial,  he  and  his  allies  were  loath 
to  accuse  their  queen.  But  what  would  Elizabeth  do  if  they  proved 
their  case  ?  Would  the  casket  letters,  of  which  he  had  sent  a  Scots 
translation,  by  John  Wood,  his  retainer,  be  held  as  full  proof  if  the 
originals,  when  presented,  agreed  with  the  translations.*^*^  Murray's 
proposal  is  of  June  22.  On  June  19  du  Croc  reported  that  Elizabeth 
had  publicly  discoursed  with  Herries.  She  said  that  she  was  deter- 
mined to  restore  Mary,  or  reconcile  her  to  her  lords.  She  therefore 
wished  each  party  to  send  to  her  one  commissioner.  Herries  said 
that  he  did  not  think  Mary,  a  sovereign  herself,  would  accept  Eliz- 
abeth as  a  judge.  He  was  ready  to  assent  to  a  visit  by  Murray  and 
Morton.  They  would  be  answered,  if  they  spoke  of  the  murder.^'^ 
On  June  28  Herries  wrote  to  Mary.  Elizabeth  had  said  that  she 
would  never  act  as  judge,  but  would  do  for  her  what  she  would  do 
for  herself  (restore  her),  or  make  a  reconciliation.  At  a  meeting 
with  Elizabeth  (June  22)  Herries  made  (and  he  reports  to  Mary) 
this  strange  inquiry  :  "  Madame,  if,  which  God  forbid,  there  were 
appearance  otherwise "  (namely,  against  Mary's  innocence),  "what 
then?"  "Still,"  said  Elizabeth,  "I  would  do  my  best  for  a  recon- 
ciliation, consistent  with  her  honour  and  safety."^  Nothing,  of 
course,  can  raise  a  stronger  presumption  of  Mary's  guilt  than  Herries's 
"  s'il  y'avoit  autrement  ?  que  Dieu  ne  veuille  !  " 

But  Mary  now  thought  herself  safe,  Elizabeth,  in  any  case,  would 
befriend  her,  and  thus  she  drifted  into  an  arrangement  which  she 


200  RIVAL   DUPLICITY  OF   MARY. 

expected  to  end  in  a  compromise  to  be  managed  by  Elizabeth 
for  her  restoration.  Under  this  delusion  she  submitted  to  what  she 
could  not  resist,  removal  from  Carlisle,  so  near  the  freedom  of  the 
friendly  Border,  to  Bolton,  near  York,  where  neither  Buccleuch  nor 
Ferniehirst  could  rescue  her.  Thither  she  was  taken  by  Knollys 
on  July  13.  The  least  disreputable  of  Bothwell's  friends,  Riccar- 
toun,  attended  her :  at  Carlisle  one  of  Bothwell's  lambs,  one  of 
the  actual  murderers,  "  Black  Ormiston,"  had  been  wont  to  visit 
her — so  Willock  averred.  She  had  not  yet  cast  off  Bothwell.  In 
precisely  the  same  way  a  member  of  the  band  to  murder  Darnley 
was  in  favour  with  ]\Iurray,  to  the  general  disgust. ^^  While  she 
now  amused  Knollys  and  EUzabeth  by  playing  at  Anglicanism, 
and  at  a  purpose  to  substitute  the  surplice,  in  Scotland,  for  the 
Genevan  gown  ;  while  she  was  writing  in  half-friendly  fashion  even 
to  Murray, — she  was  at  the  same  time  appealing  for  aid  to  all 
Christian  princes ;  she  was  assuring  the  Queen  of  Spain  that  her 
presence  in  England  helped  the  Catholic  cause,  which  she  would 
never  desert ;  and,  in  an  hour  of  wild  hope  of  French  assistance, 
she  was  urging  her  Scottish  partisans  to  secure  her  child,  and  take 
and  slay  her  chief  enemies.'^'^  We  are  not  to  ask  for  sincerity 
from  a  betrayed  prisoner,  but  we  may  admire  the  dauntless  con- 
fidence of  Mary  in  her  emissaries.  Herries  was  communicating 
to  Huntly  the  terms  on  which  he  expected  Elizabeth  to  pilot  INIary 
through  the  breakers,  "  after  this  reasoning "  with  Murray  or  his 
commissioners  (July  31).  Scotland  was  an  armed  anarchy,  barely 
checked  by  Elizabeth's  and  Mary's  orders  for  a  provisional  peace. 
But  Murray  held  his  Parliament  on  August  16,  forfeited  Hepburns 
and  Hamiltons,  safeguarded  himself  for  his  sale  of  Mary's  personal 
property,  her  jewels,  and  passed  persecuting  statutes.'^ 

Mary  appointed  Chatelherault,  still  in  France,  as  her  lieutenant 
of  her  realm.  "  Howsoever  I  be  kept  a  prisoner,"  she  told  Knollys, 
"yet  my  party  will  stand  fast  against  my  lord  of  Murray."  ^^  Not 
a  jot  did  she  bate  of  hope  or  heart :  she  was  in  the  toils  of  Eliz- 
abeth and  of  Fate,  but  she  could  only  be  tamed  by  death.  "  Sin- 
cere "  she  was  not  :  who  could  be  sincere  when  matched  with  the 
inveterate  mendacity  of  Elizabeth?  Mr  Froude  observes:  "To 
the  French  Ambassador,  to  de  Silva,  and  Lord  Herries,  Elizabeth 
distinctly  and  repeatedly  said  that  at  all  events,  and  whatever  came 
of  the  investigation,  the  Queen  of  Scots  should  be  restored.  She 
made  this   positive   declaration  because,  without  it,  the  Queen  of 


MARY   DENIES   THE   CASKET   LETTERS.  20I 

Scots  would  not  have  consented  that  the  investigation  should  take 
place.  Yet  a  memoir  of  Cecil,  dated  on  the  23rd  of  September, 
states,  with  an  emphasis  marked  by  the  underhning  of  the  words, 
that  "?V  was  not  meant,  if  the  Queen  of  Scots  should  be  fou7id  guilty 
of  the  murder,  to  restore  her  to  Scotland,  however  her  friends  might 
brag  to  the  contrary."  ^^  Cecil  said  more  than  Mr  Froude  has 
quoted.  In  any  case  Mary  was  to  remain  a  prisoner  at  Elizabeth's 
pleasure.  Let  fione  of  them  escafe  \va.s  the  ceaseless  refrain.  "Nor 
shall  there  be  any  haste  made  of  her  delivery,"  wrote  Cecil,  "until 
the  success  of  the  matters  of  France  and  Flanders  be  seen."^* 
Mary  might  have  been  innocent :  guilty  she  was  never  proved  to 
be  in  the  shambling  and  shuffling  inquiry.  But,  guilty  or  innocent, 
Let  none  of  them  escape  / 

While  the  queens  were  rivalling  each  other  in  lack  of  sincerity, 
the  arrangements  for  a  meeting  of  envoys  of  both  parties  at  York, 
before  Elizabeth's  commissioners,  drew  to  their  close.  Elizabeth 
had  appointed  three  representatives,  Norfolk,  Sussex,  and  Sadleyr, 
who  had  no  love  of  the  perilous  task.  Their  instructions  bore  that 
if  mere  presumptions  of  guilt  were  alleged  against  Mary,  Elizabeth 
would  need  to  think  about  restoring  her.  But  if  plain  proof  be 
brought,  Elizabeth  will  regard  Mary  as  "  unworthy  of  a  kingdom."  '^^ 
Many  stipulations  were  made  in  case  an  agreement  was  concluded, 
but  these,  of  course,  came  to  nothing.  In  Mary's  instructions  the 
point  of  interest  is  her  remark  on  incriminating  writings  of  hers 
which  her  rebels  may  say  that  they  possess.  Her  commissioners 
must  demand  the  production  of  the  originals  for  her  own  inspection, 
and  reply,  "  For  ye  shall  affirm  in  my  name  that  I  never  wrote 
anything  concerning  that  matter  to  any  living  creature.  And  if  any 
such  writings  be,  they  are  false  and  feigned,  forged  and  invented  by 
themselves ;  .  .  .  and  there  are  divers  in  Scotland,  hoth  men  and 
women,  that  can  counterfeit  my  handwriting,  and  write  the  like 
manner  of  writing  which  I  use  as  well  as  myself,  and  principally 
such  as  are  in  company  with  themselves."  ^^  Mary  refers  to  the 
new-fashioned  Italian  or  Roman  hand,  which  Murray  did  not  write, 
though  Bothwell  did.  Perhaps  this  is  the  only  passage  where  Mary 
deliberately  and  publicly  denounces  the  letters  as  forgeries.  But 
then  she  never,  despite  her  earnest  entreaties,  and  even  applications 
to  the  French  Ambassador,  was  allowed  to  see  the  alleged  originals 
of  the  letters.  The  lords  of  her  party  on  September  12,  1568, 
declared  the  letters  forged,  or  garbled  "  in  substantious  clauses." 


202  THE   LETTERS   SHOWN    AT   YORK. 

On  October  6  Elizabeth's  representatives  reported  preliminary 
discourses  with  Mary's  men,  chiefly  Bishop  Lesley  (who  had  no 
belief  in  her  innocence,  and  no  courage)  and  Herries,  and  with 
Murray  and  Lethington.  With  these,  among  many  others,  was 
George  Buchanan,  who  had  taken  the  part  of  an  accusing  advo- 
cate. His  '  Detection  '  and  his  '  Book  of  Articles '  already  existed, 
it  is  probable,  in  manuscript ;  early  forms  of  them  are  in  the 
Lennox  MSS.,  and  are  very  instructive.  Lennox  himself  was  in 
York ;  since  June  he  had  been  drawing  up  indictments  against 
Mary;  drafts  of  these,  with  many  variations  and  some  absurd 
mythical  inventions,  exist  in  MS.  in  the  University  Library  at 
Cambridge.  Murray  and  Lethington,  very  early  in  the  proceed- 
ings at  York,  spoke  of  what  they  could  reluctantly  reveal,  if 
they  must.  The  necessity  would  arise  if  Mary  did  not  accept 
an  arrangement  by  which  she  should  reside  in  England,  with 
a  large  pension  (in  addition  to  her  dowry  from  France),  while 
Murray  would  keep  the  regency.  This  is  stated  by  Robert  ]Mel- 
ville,  who  managed  the  transaction.  The  MS.  of  this  report  is 
unluckily  fragmentary."^  Mary's  lords  accused  Murray  and  his 
accomplices  of  rebellion.  Murray  then  asked  to  be  told,  among 
other  things,  how  Elizabeth  would  act  if  Mary  were  proved  guilty. 
Would  she  hand  her  over  to  him,  or  would  she  hold  her  a  pris- 
oner ?  On  October  1 1  Lethington  and  Buchanan,  unofficially, 
showed  the  English  lords  the  casket  letters.  Doubtless  they  saw 
the  originals,  but  their  extracts  were  made  from  the  Scots  transla- 
tions."^ Norfolk  and  the  others  were  horrified,  and  expressed  their 
feelings  in  a  long  letter,  which  they  altered  in  passages,  so  as  not  to 
indicate  complete  conviction.^*^ 

Now  Mary,  up  to  this  moment,  had  reason  to  think  Norfolk 
favourable  to  her,  and  the  idea  of  their  marriage  had  been  m.ooted. 
Lethington,  by  showing  the  casket  letters,  and  by  letting  Lesley 
and  Boyd,  and,  through  them,  Mary,  know  that  he  had  done  so, 
had  put  pressure  on  Mary.  She  would  be  more  likely  to  accept 
a  compromise,  the  letters  would  be  hushed  up,  and  nothing  would 
come  out  to  implicate  Lethington  himself.  But  it  was  also  his 
game  that  Norfolk  should  marry  Mary.  He  therefore,  during  a 
long  ride  with  Norfolk  (October  i6),  deliberately  shook  his  belief 
in  the  letters,  as  Norfolk  later  confessed ;  urging,  apparently,  the 
ease  with  which  Mary's  handwriting  could  be  imitated. ^^  During 
the   same    ride    Norfolk    told    Lethington    that   it  was   Elizabeth's 


SUBTLETIES   OF   LETHINGTON.  203 

secret  design  to  make  Mary's  accusers  say  their  worst,  which 
did  not  suit  Lethington :  for  if  Mary  were  allowed  to  reply, 
she  would  certainly  convict  him  of  a  share  in  Darnley's  death. 
What  did  suit  Lethington  was  a  quiet  compromise,  Mary  wedded  to 
Norfolk,  and,  as  to  himself,  silenced  by  gratitude,  and  the  necessity 
of  never  reopening  the  dangerous  question.  Lethington's  plan  was 
astute  :  he  well  knew  Mary's  ardent  hatred  of  himself,  her  ungrate- 
ful and  treacherous  Minister,  whose  very  life  she  had  saved,  and 
who  had  then  turned  against  her.  But  Lethington  had  succeeded 
only  too  well  in  shaking  Norfolk's  belief  in  Mary's  guilt.  The 
Duke  presently  bade  Mary  refuse  all  compromise,  not  wishing 
to  marry  a  bride  with  such  a  stain  on  her  reputation.  This  we 
learn  from  Robert  Melville's  MS.,  already  cited.  Lethington  had 
overreached  himself.  This  interpretation  of  his  strangely  tortuous 
action  is  unfamiliar  to  our  historians,  and  is  offered  as  not  an 
inconsistent  hypothesis  on  the  evidence, 

]\Ieanwhile  Norfolk  was  dealing  secretly  with  Murray,  to  what 
extent  is  doubtful,  as  to  his  own  marriage  Avith  Mary.**'^  Sussex 
(October  22)  wrote  to  London,  expressing  his  strong  opinion  that 
Mary's  defence,  and  her  accusation  of  her  accusers,  "  will  judicially 
fall  out  best."  ^^  Sussex  thinks  that,  for  dynastic  reasons,  Murray 
and  Lethington  will  use  Robert  Melville  "  to  work  a  composition," 
the  regency  being  confirmed  to  Murray.  "  Neither  will  Murray  like 
of  any  order  whereby  he  shall  not  be  Regent  styled,"  despite  his 
lack  of  ambition.  Murray  and  the  Hamiltons  "  care  neither  for  the 
mother  nor  the  child  (as  I  think  before  God),  but  to  serve  their  own 
turns."  In  any  case,  Sussex  would  have  Mary  detained  in  England. 
Elizabeth,  "  by  virtue  of  her  superiority  over  Scotland "  (the  old 
song !),  may  find  Mary  guilty,  if  Murray  proves  his  case.  But 
Sussex  fears  that  Murray  cannot  prove  his  case  ;  that  it  will  not 
"fall  out  sufficiently  (as  I  doubt  it  will  not)  to  determine  judicially, 
if  she  denies  her  letters."  This  is  probably  the  best  evidence  of 
the  weakness  of  proof  from  the  casket  letters.  If  Mary  denies 
them,  they  are,  Sussex  fears,  not  legally  evidence.  Unsigned,  and 
undirected,  proof  would  rest  on  handwriting,  or  on  evidence  of  the 
bearers.  Of  these,  Beaton  was  with  Mary  at  Bolton.-  Where  was 
the  other,  Paris,  Bothwell's  servant  ?  On  October  30,  a  week 
after  Sussex  wrote,  John  Clerk,  an  agent  of  Murray,  acknowledged 
receipt  of  the  person  of  Paris  at  Roskilde,  in  Zealand.  He  was 
not   hurriedly  conveyed   to   England  as  a  witness.     According   to 


204  NEGOTIATIONS   (NOVEMBER    1568). 

Murray,  he  did  not  arrive  in  Scotland  till  June  in  the  following 
year ;  and  (after  confessions)  he  was  executed  at  St  Andrews  on 
August  16,  1569.^*  Thus  the  lords  had  no  evidence  except  the 
casket  letters,  which  Sussex  thought  inadequate,  and  certain  to 
be  met  by  a  stronger  counter-charge. 

At  this  moment  Elizabeth  seems  to  have  heard  the  rumour  of 
Norfolk's  marriage  with  Mary, — an  amazing  marriage  indeed,  after 
Norfolk's  letters  of  October  11.^^  If  so,  nothing  appears  of  it  in 
her  letter  to  Norfolk  of  October  16.  She  transfers  the  case  to 
London.  INIary's  commissioners  are  to  be  flattered  with  hopes,  and 
imagine  that  only  her  restitution  is  intended.^^  On  October  22 
Mary  wrote  to  Elizabeth,  assenting  to  the  change,  but  refusing  to 
discuss  new  propositions,  if  advanced  by  her  adversaries.^''  Mary 
now  sent  Robert  Melville  to  Elizabeth. ^^  At  Hampton  Court,  on 
October  30,  Cecil  and  the  Privy  Council  were  arranging  traps  for 
the  Scots  of  both  parties.  Mary's  commissioners  were  to  be  put  off 
with  generalities,  lest  they  should  suspect  a  regular  inquest  and 
break  off.  Murray's  representatives  were  to  be  told  that  they  were 
in  no  danger  from  Elizabeth,  if  they  produced  good  evidence,  and 
that  Mary,  in  that  case,  should  not  be  restored ;  but  even  this 
promise  was  to  be  "  hedged."  Mary,  for  fear  of  escape,  ought  to 
be  taken  to  Tutbury.  Additional  peers  were  to  be  called  in,  if 
Murray  produced  valid  proof.  Was  it  necessary  that  Mary,  on 
demand,  should  be  heard  in  person  ?  In  that  case  some  expert  in 
civil  law  should  be  consulted.^^  Experts  were  consulted.  They, 
or  some  of  them,  decided  that  all  jNIary's  demands  for  a  public 
hearing,  in  London,  before  Elizabeth,  the  peers,  and  the  French 
and  Spanish  Ambassadors,  ought  to  be  granted.  They  were  never 
granted.^''  The  refusal  was  an  infamy.  On  November  22,  from 
Bolton,  Mary  wrote  to  her  commissioners.  The  York  Conference, 
she  said,  had  been  only  for  reconcilement  and  reconciliation.  Now 
the  commissioners  may  approach  Elizabeth,  and  say  that  Mary  is 
still  ready  to  be  reconciled,  saving  her  crown  and  honour.  If  this 
is  not  accepted,  her  commissioners  are  to  break  off  negotiations.^^ 
Mr  Froude  represents  this  as  "  sending  word  to  Murray."  ^-  On 
the  same  day  Mary  sent  her  friends  their  commission.  If  Murray 
is  admitted  into  Elizabeth's  presence,  so  must  she  be.  She  will 
appear  publicly,  as  the  experts  declared  that  she  ought  to  be  allowed 
to  do.  Now  she  is  a  prisoner,  and  remote  :  if  she  is  not  admitted, 
her  envoys  must  break  ofT  the  negotiations.  These  things  were  written 


MURRAY  PRODUCES   HIS   CHARGES.  205 

after  Mary  learned,  on  November  21,  from  Hepburn  of  Riccartoun, 
that  Elizabeth  was  "  bent  much  against  her,"  and  thought  of  remov- 
ing her  from  Bolton."^  Obviously  she  was  wise,  in  the  circumstances, 
when  she  made  her  demands. 

Meanwhile  Murray,  on  arriving  in  London,  found  that  his  own 
affairs  were  perplexed.  According  to  Robert  Melville,  in  his  MS. 
deposition,  the  alliance  struck  between  Murray  and  Norfolk  at 
York  had  been  betrayed  to  Elizabeth,  while  Mary  informed  Mel- 
ville, as  we  saw,  that  a  message  to  her  from  Norfolk  forbade  her 
to  resign  her  crown.  Was  Murray  to  betray  Norfolk,  or  to  break 
with  Morton  (who  was  all  for  an  extreme  course),  and  disoblige 
Elizabeth,  by  keeping  back  his  accusations  ?  He  waited  on  events. 
On  November  23,  at  Hampton  Court,  the  parties  met  Elizabeth. 
Mary's  letters  (November  22),  of  course,  had  not  reached  Lesley 
and  the  rest.  Chatelherault  was  present.  Mary's  men  demanded 
Mary's  admission  :  as  Murray  had  already  seen  Elizabeth.  Protests 
against  judgeship  by  Elizabeth  were  made,  and  accepted.^*  On 
November  26  Murray  was  assured  that,  if  Mary  be  found  guilty, 
the  proceedings  of  the  lords  would  be  approved,  and  James 
regarded  as  king,  Murray  as  Regent.  These  concessions  were 
carefully  "  hedged,"  but  the  purpose  of  judging  and  trying  Mary 
was  avowed. ^^ 

There  followed  an  extraordinary  scene.  After  Murray,  as  usual, 
had  expressed  reluctance,  he  produced  his  "eik,"  or  addition  to 
his  charges,  a  formal  accusation  of  Mary.^*'  It  is  Sir  James  Melville 
who  tells  how  Wood,  a  creature  of  Murray,  had  this  document  "  in 
his  bosom " ;  how  the  Bishop  of  Orkney  snatched  it  from  him ; 
how,  amidst  laughter  and  banter,  the  deed  was  done  at  last.  Leth- 
ington,  who  was  outside  at  the  moment,  came  in  and  told  Murray 
that  he  "had  shamed  himself"  All  but  Lethington  were  laughing, 
and  Murray  went  to  his  rooms  "with  tears  in  his  eyes."^"^  On 
November  29  Lennox  appeared  as  an  accuser  of  Mary.  Mary's 
commissioners  were  shown  the  "eik,"  and  asked  for  time  to  con- 
sider it.  Lesley  consulted  the  French  Ambassador,  La  Mothe, 
who  glanced  at  the  hypothesis  that  Mary  had  been  "bewitched," 
but  advised  delay.  On  December  i  Mary's  men  cited  her  open 
instructions,  not  her  letter  as  to  a  compromise  of  November  22, 
reiterated  her  appeal  to  be  heard,  and  asked  for  an  interview  with 
Elizabeth.  On  December  3  they  visited  her  at  Hampton  Court. 
The  conference,  they  said,  had  been  broken  by  Murray,  but  the 


206  WEAKNESS   OF   MARY'S   COMMISSIONERS. 

slander  remained.  They  demanded  the  arrest  of  Murray's  party 
and  the  admission  of  Mary  to  a  free  hearing.^^  Elizabeth  next 
day  said  that  she  must  first  hear  the  lords'  proofs.  Mary's  com- 
missioners declined  to  proceed  on  these  terms.^^  So  far,  Mary's 
commissioners  were  in  the  right.  The  meanest  amateur  of  petty 
larceny  could  not  be  tried  on  the  conditions  proposed  for  their 
queen.  But  as  she  was  absent,  as  communication  could  not  be 
held  with  her  save  after  long  delays  (part  of  the  infamous  injustice 
of  the  whole  proceedings),  they  ventured  on  ill-advised  steps. 

First,  before  seeing  Elizabeth,  they  had  held  a  private  interview 
with  Leicester  and  Cecil.  Here  they  once  again  spoke  of  a  re- 
conciliation, and  asked  Cecil  to  carry  their  words  to  Elizabeth. 
Cecil  carried  the  commissioners  to  Elizabeth  ;  they  repeated  their 
desires  for  accommodation.  Throughout,  Lesley  and  Herries  did 
not  behave  as  if  convinced  of  Mary's  innocence.  "  Suppose,  which 
God  forbid,  appearances  are  othenvise  !  "  But  had  they  known  her 
stainless,  it  was  still  their  interest  to  end  a  discussion  which  would 
•certainly  never  be  handled  with  common  fairness  and  honour. 
Their  proposal  for  a  reconciliation  gave  Elizabeth  her  chance. 
It  would  be  inconsistent,  she  said,  with  her  sister's  honour.  So 
it  would  have  been,  if  her  sister  was  to  have  a  fair  common 
chance  of  retrieving  her  honour.  But  against  ^haf  the  deter- 
mination of  Elizabeth  was  adamant.  She  promptly  involved  her- 
self, to  be  sure,  in  a  contradiction  in  terms.  She  told  the  com- 
missioners, now  that  "  I  think  it  very  reasonable  that  she  should  be 
heard  in  her  own  cause,  beifig  so  weighty,"  now  that  she  did  not  wish 
Mary  to  appear  in  person,  "  without  their  accusation  might  first 
appear  to  have  more  likelihood  of  just  cause  than  she  did  find 
therein."  ^'^'^  Such,  at  least,  is  the  story  of  the  Scottish  negotiators. 
The  case  was  at  once  so  weighty  that  Mary  ought  to  be  heard,  and, 
so  far,  seemed  so  ill  bottomed  that  Mary  need  not  take  the  trouble 
to  appear.  ^^^ 

Mary's  commissioners  replied  that  their  last  request  for  a  re- 
conciliation was  of  their  own  motion.  Mar}'  did  not,  and  could 
not,  know  anything  of  the  matter.  Mary  herself,  we  know,  had  told 
Knollys  that,  if  charges  against  her  were  once  made,  "  they  were  past 
all  reconciliation."  On  December  6  ISIary's  commissioners  begged 
that  proceedings  might  be  stayed  till  they  heard  from  their  mistress, 
and  put  in  a  protest  that  she  could  not  be  compromised.  That 
""  probation  "   should   be   taken   by  Elizabeth,  of  Murray's  charges, 


THE  "articles"   AGAINST   MARY.  20/ 

before  Mary  was  summoned,  they  justly  declare  to  be  "  preposterous." 
Cecil  and  his  assessors  refused  to  listen  to  this  :  Lesley  and  his  friends 
were  obliged  to  withdraw  to  amend  their  protest,  and  before  the 
English  would  receive  it,  Murray,  Morton,  and  the  rest  came  in, 
and  Morton  made  his  declaration  as  to  how  he  obtained  the  casket 
with  the  letters.-^^-  Then  the  chivalrous  Murray  and  his  friends,  ex- 
pressing their  absence  of  pleasure  in  their  duty,  produced,  first, 
a  book  of  "  Articles  containing  certain  conjectures,  presumptions, 
likelihoods,  and  circumstances,"  making  the  guilt  of  Mary  seem 
probable.*  What  these  Articles  were,  in  what  terms  the  lords 
accused  Mary,  and  by  what  arguments,  we  are  not  allowed  to 
know.  Documents,  indeed,  exist,  but  (as  may  be  seen  in  the 
footnote)  the  accuracy  of  criticism  will  not  permit  us  to  allege 
that  the  lords  relied  on  these  inconsistent  and  incorrect  attempts 

*  This  document  has  been  published  by  Mr  Hosack  from  a  manuscript  at  one 
time  in  the  possession  of  Lord  Hopetoun,  and  now  in  the  British  Museum  (Add. 
MSB.,  35,531).  Mr  Bain,  in  his  Calendar  (ii.  555-559),  says  that,  in  his  opinion, 
the  MS.  is  in  the  hand  of  Alexander  Hay,  the  Clerk  of  the  Privy  Council.  A 
writer  in  the  '  Quarterly  Review,"  January  1902,  p.  240,  says  that  it  bears  no 
indorsement  or  authentication  of  any  kind  to  indicate  that  it  was  ever  adoj^ted  or 
approved  by  the  Scottish  commissioners  who  went  to  York  and  Westminster,  or 
by  any  other  body,  or  that  it  was  ever  laid  before  a  court  or  conference  of  any 
description.  We  know  that  "articles"  against  Mary  were  put  in,  and  this  docu- 
ment, apparently  in  the  hand  of  the  Clerk  of  Council,  is  the  most  elaborate  form 
of  such  articles  now  known.  Others  e.xist  in  the  Cambridge  MSS.  with  the  papers 
of  Lennox.  The  articles  bear  traces  of  the  influence  of  the  never-produced  letter 
which  Murray  in  1567,  and  Lennox  in  156S,  quoted  from,  as  if  it  were  by  Mary, 
though  the  writer  of  the  articles  also  knows  our  casket  letter  ii.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  lords  have  no  established  official  connection  either  with  Cecil's  copy  of 
the  Ainslie  band,  or  with  this  document  published  by  Mr  Hosack  as  the  "Book 
of  Articles,"  or  with  the  chronological  list  of  events  called  "Cecil's  Journal,"  or 
"Murray's  Diary."  Thus,  by  way  of  representing  their  charges  against  Mary,  we 
have  nothing  indorsed  as  official,  nothing  to  which  we  can  pin  them  down.  It  is 
always  possible,  and,  in  the  lords' interest,  it  is  highly  desirable,  lo  disconnect  them 
from  "Cecil's  Journal"  and  the  "  Book  of  Articles."  Both,  like  Buchanan's  'De- 
tection,' are  open  to  destructive  criticism  ;  indeed  Buchanan's  '  Detection '  now 
agrees  with,  now  varies  from,  the  "Book  of  Articles."  As  to  that  document, 
Mr  Hill  Burton  writes  :  "  If  this  paper  really  was  the  one  tabled  by  Murray's 
party,  it  does  little  credit  either  to  their  honesty  or  their  skill."'  Meanwhile  we 
shall  not  criticise  the  thing  ;  but  the  lords  prosecutors  have  left  nothing  better  by 
way  of  an  accusation  of  Mary.  If  they  ever  "found  a  set  of  articles  to  satisfy 
them"  (in  the  words  of  the  '  Quarterly'  reviewer),  they  have  not  bequeathed  that 
valuable  document  to  us ;  and  if  they  were  content  with  the  '  Articles '  and 
'  Diary '  that  have  reached  us,  they  were  very  easily  satisfied.  The  papers  are 
worthless,  and,  if  put  forward  by  the  lords  (as  I  do  not  doubt  that  they  were),  are 
fatal  to  their  case. 


208  EXAMINATION    OF  THE   CASKET   LETTERS. 

at  demonstration.  What  they  did  rely  on,  of  this  kind,  must  re- 
main a  mystery. 

On  December  7  the  English  Commissioners,  in  answer  to  a 
question  of  Murray's,  declined  to  say  whether  they  were  satisfied  by 
the  arguments  in  the  Articles  or  not.  The  casket  was  then  pro- 
duced, and  Morton  swore  to  the  veracity  of  his  account  of  its 
discovery.  Two  contracts  of  marriage  between  Mary  and  Bothwell, 
found  in  the  casket,  were  then  produced,  and  casket  letters  i.  and  ii. 
in  French,  On  December  8  the  other  six  casket  letters  and  the 
"  sonnets "  were  shown,  copied,  and  collated.  Next  came  the 
depositions,  under  examination,  of  Bothwell's  accomplices, — Talla, 
Powrie,  Dalgleish,  and  Bowton.  The  deposition  of  Bowton  was 
mutilated,  to  shield  Murray's  associates.^^^  On  December  9  the  Com- 
missioners read  the  casket  letters,  "  duly  translated  into  English." 
They  were  very  badly  translated,  in  two  cases  not  from  the  French ; 
the  Scots  translations  were  merely  anglicised. 

On  December  9  a  written  deposition  by  Nelson,  a  servant  who 
escaped  unhurt  from  Kirk-o'- Field,  was  put  in.  Then  came  a 
written  deposition  by  a  retainer  of  Lennox,  Crawford,  who  had 
been  with  Darnley  when  Mary  visited  him  at  Glasgow  in  January 
1567.  Crawford's  business  was  to  corroborate  the  account  of  a 
conversation  between  Mary  and  Darnley  which  Mary  is  made  to 
describe  in  the  second  casket  letter.  His  deposition  rather  in- 
validates the  authenticity  of  the  letter  than  otherwise.  ■"*■* 

Finally,  at  Hampton  Court,  on  December  14,  six  great  peers 
being  added  to  the  commissioners,  a  summary  was  given  of  the 
proceedings  at  York  and  Westminster,  and  the  originals  of  the 
casket  letters  were  compared  with  genuine  letters  by  Mary.  "  No 
difference  was  found,"  says  Cecil. ^''^  We  hear  of  no  other  examina- 
tion of  handwriting,  nothing  but  this  scrutiny  on  almost  the  shortest 
day.  We  shall  later  find  that  in  another  case  (1609)  letters,  con- 
fessedly and  undeniably  forged,  deceived  seven  honest  witnesses, 
familiar  with  the  hand  of  the  alleged  writer,  and  bringing  into  court 
genuine  letters  of  his  for  comparison  (see  Appendix  B.,  "  Logan  of 
Restalrig  and  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy ").  On  the  following  day 
(December  15)  the  Articles  (whatever  they  may  have  been)  were 
read,  "a  writing  in  manner  of  Articles."  Whether  they  were  Mr 
Hosack's  published  "  Book  of  Articles,"  or  a  set  more  logical,  lucid, 
and  accurate  but  no  longer  to  be  found,  we  do  not  know,  thouhg 
the  present   writer  has  no  doubt  that  the  Articles  read  were   the 


THE   INQUIRY   HUDDLED   UP.  20g 

Articles  published.  Some  other  papers,  and  a  new  statement  by 
Crawford,  followed.  Crawford  reported  that  Bowton  and  Talla,  on 
the  scaffold,  confessed  to  Aim  that  Mary  urged  Bothwell  to  slay 
Darnley.^*^^  This  special  confession,  to  a  friend  of  Darnley,  is  not 
referred  to  elsewhere.  It  may  have  been  noted  that  Lennox,  by 
aid  of  Crawford,  and  certainly  of  Buchanan  (who  undeniably  had 
access  to  Lennox's  papers),  played  a  great  part  in  the  prosecution. 
After  these  two  days  spent  in  the  rapid  investigation  (too  rapid, 
for  who  could  criticise  a  set  of  Articles  merely  read  aloud?)  the 
nobles  were  told  that  Elizabeth,  in  the  painful  circumstances,  could 
not  admit  Mary  to  her  presence.  The  lords  agreed,  "  as  the  case 
now  did  stand,"  the  rather  as  "  they  had  seen  such  foul  matters." 
And  that  was  alL^*^^ 

An  inquiry  more  disgraceful  was  never  conducted  on  an  absent 
prisoner.  Guilty  or  not  guilty,  Mary  was  foully  wronged.  Without 
dwelling  further  on  meetings,  discussions,  and  equivocations,  it  must 
suffice  to  say  that  efforts  were  then  made  to  frighten  Mary  into 
resigning  her  crown.  Of  the  means  to  this  end  a  list,  in  Cecil's 
hand,  is  extant. ^''^  Mary  was  not  to  be  terrified ;  her  last  words, 
she  said,  would  be  the  words  of  a  Scottish  queen.  On  January  lo, 
1569,  Murray  and  his  allies  were  told  by  Elizabeth  that,  while 
nothing  to  their  discredit  was  proved,  they  had  produced  no  evidence 
"  whereby  the  Queen  of  England  should  conceive  or  take  any  evil 
opinion  of  the  queen,  her  good  sister,  for  anything  yet  seen."  ^'^^  As 
Murray  construed  all  this:  EHzabeth  "allowed  their  doings,  with 
promise  to  maintain  the  king's  government,  and  our  regiment."  So 
he  wrote  to  the  laird  of  Craigmillan^^**  That  was  practically  the 
result.  It  was  the  fate  of  Elizabeth  and  of  Murray  to  make 
Mary's  appear  the  better  cause  by  the  incredible  dishonesty  and 
hypocritical  futility  with  which  they  handled  her  case.  Murray 
was  to  resume  his  regency  :  Mary  was  to  be  a  prisoner, — a  dis- 
credited prisoner,  as  Elizabeth  hoped.  Then  began  new  scenes 
of  intrigue. 


VOL.    II. 


2IO  NOTES. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   VIII. 

^  Laiiig,  ii.  325.  Henderson,  Casket  Letters,  p.  115;  Morton's  account  of  the 
discovery  of  the  casket. 

^  Laing,  ii.  295,  296.  ^  Labanoff,  ii.  3,  4. 

*  Stevenson,  pp.  173,  176.  *  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  498. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  500.  '  Hosack,  i.  282-286. 

^  Cf.  Drury  to  Cecil,  April  15,  1567,  Cal.  For.  Eliz.,  viii.  207. 

®  Drury  to  Cecil,  Border  MS.,  Tytler,  vi.  99  ;  Calendar,  ii.  319,  320. 

^^  Knox,  ii.  539.  "  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  p.  212. 

^'  Act  Pari.,  ii.  546  et  seq.  ■'^  Stevenson,  p.  175. 

•^*  Calendar,  ii.  317. 

^*  ISIorton  Papers,  Bannatyne  Club,  i.  19  ;  Hosack,  i.  293. 

'^  Keith,  ii.  562-569  ;  Hay  Fleming  (on  the  whole  subject),  pp.  446,  447. 

^"  Spanish  Calendar,  i.  662. 

^8  Anderson,  i.  112;  Calendar,  ii.  322;  Keith,  ii.  562-569;  Goodall,  ii.  87, 
where  the  production  of  the  warrant  at  Westminster  seems  to  be  asserted  by  the 
Scottish  commissioners. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  341.  -"  Calendar,  ii.  322. 

^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  pp.  213,  214.  ^^  Calendar,  ii.  323. 

^'  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  p.  224.  -■•  Labanoff,  ii.  41. 

26  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  p.  215. 

^  Lost  Chapter  in  the  History  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  discovered. 

^  Teulet,  ii.  155.  *^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  viii.  223-225. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  520.  ^°  Teulet,  ii.  1 52-1 82. 

2^  Laing,  ii.  113  et  seq.  32  -peulet,  ii.  244. 

33  Melville,  pp.  183,  184,  1827. 

3^  Teulet,  ii.  169.  Lethington  said  that  Mary  spoke  to  him  from  her  window. 
This,  on  June  17,  he  told  to  du  Croc.  Compare  Claude  Nau,  pp.  46-4S.  See 
also  '  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,'  p.  382. 

33  Teulet,  ii.  170.  The  references  to  the  various  documents  may  be  found  in 
'The  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,'  pp.  188-192,  360,  362. 

3^  Laing,  ii.  114,  115.  37  ggg  Morton  in  Calendar,  ii.  730. 

3*  Laing,  ii.  249-251. 

3^  Spanish  Calendar,   i.  657-659;  Bain,   Calendar,  ii.  336;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix. 

354.  355- 

■»o  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  530.  '•^  StevensoH,  p.  220 ;   Calendar,  ii.  355. 

*2  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1566,  pp.  297,  298.  «  Calendar,  ii.  368. 

"  Diurnal,  p.  119. 

••■^  August  9,  Calendar,  ii.  374,  375.     Mr  Hosack  disbelieves  these  statements. 

'^  Calendar,  ii.  380.  «"  See  Appendix  A. ,  The  Casket  Letters. 

*8  Keith,  ii.  734-739  ;  Hosack,  i.  367-370.  ^^  Keith,  ii.  739. 

^^  Froude,  viii.  250.  ^i  Keith,  ii.  742-744. 

*-  See  Anderson,  ii.  206-230 ;  "  Collections  relating  to  the  History  of  Mary," 
1727. 

*3  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1567,  pp.  366,  367,  "  Diurnal,  pp.  127,  128. 

^  Anderson,  ii.  253.  ^  Teulet,  ii.  941.  ^^  Teulet,  ii.  214. 


i 


NOTES.  211 

88  Teulet,  ii.  204.  *^  Hay  Fleming,  pp.  4S6-488,  512-514. 

^^  This  account  follows  Mr  A.  M.  Scott's  '  Battle  of  Langside '  (Glasgow,  1885). 
Mr  Scott  has  local  knowledge,  and  supplies  a  useful  map. 

*'  Calendar,  ii.  411.     May  19.  ^  Calendar,  ii.  439. 

"*  Calendar,  ii.  414-426. 

^■*  Calendar,  ii.  429.     June  12,  Herries  to  Leicester. 

®*  Calendar,  ii.  433-435.  ''''  Calendar,  ii.  441,  442. 

^  Teulet,  ii.  227,  22S.  '^^  Teulet,  ii.  237. 

*"  Drury  to  Cecil,  July  10,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  viii.  496,  497. 

^°  Labanoff,  ii.  166-1SS;  Calendar,  ii.  464-4S0. 

^^  Calendar,  ii.  479.  '-  Calendar,  ii.  457. 

"  Froude,  viii.  382,  383.  ^*  Calendar,  ii.  510. 

^■5  Calendar,  ii.  511.  '^  Goodall,  ii.  337-343. 

"''  British  Museum,  Titus,  c.  12,  fol.  157. 

"*  British  Museum,  Additional  MS.,  33,531,  fol.  119  ei  seq, 

"**  Goodall,  ii.  14S-153  ;  Haynes,  pp.  4S0,  481. 

^"  Calendar,  ii.  526-52S ;  Hosack,  ii.  496-501,  with  the  original  text  restored. 

^'  Goodall,  ii.  162-170;  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  p.  258,  note  2;  Camden, 
Annals,  pp.  143-145  ;  Laing,  i.  226;  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  pp.  357,  358. 

^'-  Bain,  Calendar,  ii.  693.  ^^  Hosack,  i.  518-522. 

*^  Hosack,  i.  250,  noted  ;  Laing,  ii.  269. 

'^^  Froude,  viii.  406,  citing  Simancas  MSS.  8®  Calendar,  ii.  533. 

*'^  Labanoff,  ii.  219  et  seq.  ^  Calendar,  ii.  541. 

*9  Goodall,  ii,  179-182.  9"  Fenelon,  i.  51.  »^  Goodall,  ii.  183,  184. 

"'-  Froude,  viii.  453.  "^  Knollys  to  Cecil,  Calendar,  ii.  551. 

^^  Goodall,  ii.  1S7-1S9.  ^^  Goodall,  ii.  201,  202. 

■'®  Goodall,  ii.  206,  207.  *''  Alelville,  pp.  210-212. 

"*  Goodall,  ii.  218-221.  ^^  Goodall,  ii.  221-223. 

""*  Goodall,  ii.  222-226.  ^"^  Hosack,  i.  424-426. 

192  Goodall,  ii.  228-231. 

103  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  pp.  xiii-xviii,  citing  the  Cambridge  MS. 

"■*  Appendix  A.,  The  Casket  Letters.  ^"^  Bain,  ii.  579,  580. 

1"®  Calendar,  Bain,  ii.  581.  The  matter  of  Crawford's  deposition  I  take  from 
the  papers  of  Lennox  in  the  Cambridge  Library,  unpublished.  See  '  Mystery  of 
Mary  Stuart,'  p.  280,  and  note. 

107  Goodall,  ii.  257-260  ;  Bain,  ii.  5S0,  581. 

108  Goodall,  ii.  274-277,  295-297.  "*  Goodall,  ii.  305. 
"0  Goodall,  ii.  306. 


212 


CHAPTER  IX. 

REGENCIES   OF    MURRAY    AND    LENNOX. 
1568-1572. 

The  only  point  of  national  importance  in  the  murderous  intrigues 
between  the  death  of  Riccio  and  Mary's  flight  to  England  was, 
that  Protestantism  in  Scotland  now  breathed  more  freely.  The 
incubus  of  a  Catholic  queen  was  removed  from  Presbyterianism. 
But  while  the  evolution  of  Presbyterianism  towards  a  theocracy 
was  the  trend  of  the  current  of  national  life,  the  deep  main  stream 
was  broken,  thwarted,  and  parcelled  by  the  obstacles  of  new 
personal  and  party  intrigues.  These  have  no  historical  interest 
except  as  illustrations  of  the  treachery  and  ferocity  which,  here  as 
in  the  Corcyra  of  Thucydides,  were  bred  by  revolution.  A  creed, 
an  order  of  society,  had  been  overthrown  :  the  men  who  survived 
among  its  ruins  were,  whatever  their  nominal  shade  of  theological 
opinion,  selfish,  false,  bloodthirsty,  desperate,  almost  beyond  par- 
allel. The  only  partisans  who  held  a  straight  course  were  men 
like  Craig  and  Knox,  and  the  other  leaders  among  the  Presbyterian 
clergy.  They  knew  what  they  wanted,  and  what  they  did  not  want : 
their  motives  were  national  and  theological,  not  merely  personal  or 
dynastic.  The  triumph  of  the  Kirk  and  of  a  severe  morality  they 
desired  :  as  to  Mary,  the  stake  or  the  block  were  all  that  they  would 
consent  to  grant  her ;  though,  perhaps,  some  of  them  wavered  at 
one  juncture. 

Mary  was  now  an  exile,  a  prisoner,  and  discredited,  Elizabeth 
hoped,  by  the  public  inspection  at  Hampton  Court  of  the  casket 
letters.  But  not  even  yet  could  Presbyterianism,  still  less  could 
Elizabeth,  feel  secure.  The  scene  at  Hampton  Court  had  been 
but   a    shadowy   triumph.     We  do  not  know  what  the  assembled 


MARY   IS   THREATENED.  213 

English  nobles  really  thought  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  casket 
letters.  They  pronounced  no  opinions.^  Mary  persisted  in  asking 
for  a  view  of  the  letters  :  her  entreaties  were  backed  by  those  of  the 
French  Ambassador.  At  one  moment  he  thought  that  Elizabeth 
had  consented  ;  but  no,  the  Scottish  queen  was  denied  the  right  of 
the  humblest  accused  person.^  In  these  circumstances,  no  just 
man  could  conclude,  on  the  evidence  of  the  letters  shown  at 
Hampton  Court,  that  she  was  guilty.  As  we  show  later,  in  another 
case,  the  forgers  were  too  skilful  for  the  experts  of  that  age,  or 
at  least  for  persons  perfectly  familiar  with  the  handwriting  of  an 
accused  man  whom  forgers  implicated  in  crime.^  On  the  other 
hand,  the  actions  of  Mary's  agents,  Lesley  and  Herries,  provoked 
suspicion.  They  were  obviously  unconvinced  of  her  innocence. 
They  misread  or  did  not  choose  to  act  on  her  instructions.  She 
said  that  she  would  accuse  her  accusers  after  she  had  once  seen  the 
originals  of  the  papers  on  which  they  based  their  charge.  Herries 
at  once  brought  a  vague  accusation  against  the  accusers ;  this  led 
to  those  offers  to  settle  the  question  by  single  combat,  which 
then  were  frequently  exchanged,  but  almost  never  acted  upon.* 
There  was  a  deadlock.  Mary  would  take  no  steps  without  seeing 
the  pieces  de  conviction^  and  these  she  never  saw. 

The  problem  of  the  disposal  of  Mary  was  as  threatening  as  ever. 
She  had  assuredly  not  been  found  guilty,  and  the  cloud  under 
which  she  lay  was  so  thin  and  fleeting  that  the  old  question  of  the 
succession  to  Elizabeth  was  already  being  complicated  with  Mary's 
existence  and  her  claims.  No  one  knew  this  better  than  Cecil. 
On  December  22,  a  week  after  the  scene  at  Hampton  Court,  he 
set  down  his  projects  and  his  perplexities  on  paper.  Mary  was,  he 
said,  "  a  lawful  prisoner."  She  must  repair  her  wrongs  to  Elizabeth 
(her  pretensions  to  the  English  crown)  before  she  could  be  allowed 
to  depart.  Elizabeth  has  "  just  claim  to  superiority  over  Scotland." 
Mary  "  is  bound  to  answer  her  subjects'  petitions,"  those  of  Murray 
and  his  accomplices.  Mary's  guilt  will  be  published  to  the  world  : 
if  she  proves  that  Murray,  or  his  party,  are  also  guilty,  that  will  not 
clear  her.  These  and  other  threats  are  to  be  used  for  the  purpose 
of  driving  Mary  into  a  compromise.  She  must,  under  these  menaces, 
assent  to  certain  propositions  :  "  the  child  "  (James  VI.)  "  being  for 
education  brought  to  England."  ^ 

The  threats  were  hinted  to  Mary,  by  Elizabeth,  in  a  letter  of 
December  21.       Lesley,   Bishop  of  Ross,  was  highly  praised,  the 


214  CIVIL  WAR   IMMINENT   (1569). 

idea  being   that   Lesley  and  KnoUys,  Mary's  jailor,  would  induce 
her  to  accept  Cecil's  propositions.^     These  were — 

1.  That  Mary  should  ask  leave  to  stay  in  England  ;  that  her  son, 

though  remaining  king,  should   be   educated  in    England ; 
that  Murray  should  remain  Regent. 

2.  Or,  Mary  shall  remain   titular  queen  :   if  James  dies  young, 

"then  the  Government  shall  be  in  her  name";  if  she  dies 
first,  James  and  "  her  issue  "  shall  retain  the  crown. 

3.  Or,  Mary  shall  be  titular  and  actual  queen,  joined  with  James 

in  the  title ;  Murray  continuing  Regent  till  James  is  eighteen. 

Mary  is  to  be  removed  to  Tutbury  and  more  closely  guarded  : 
Lesley  is  to  be  secretly  informed,  and  urged  to  persuade  Mary  to 
consent. 

Mary's  commissioners  on  January  7  declined  to  carry  any  such 
terms  to  their  mistress." 

Mary,  between  the  York  and  Westminster  Conferences,  had  con- 
sented to  a  similar  compromise,  which  she  abandoned  at  the 
suggestion  of  Norfolk.  But  now  she  had  been  disgraced  by  the 
exhibition  of  her  real  or  alleged  casket  letters.  Therefore  the  worst 
was  over.  Without  an  ally,  a  counsellor,  or  a  friend,  Mary  stood  at 
bay.  She  would  never  yield  her  crown,  "  and  my  last  word  in  life 
shall  be  that  of  a  Queen  of  Scotland." 

Lesley,  a  creeping  thing  who  had  never  believed  in  her  cause, 
and  whose  shufflings  had  severely  damaged  it,  was  employed  to 
whisper  assent.  On  February  10,  from  her  new  prison,  Tutbury, 
in  the  jailorship  of  Lord  Shrewsbury,  Mary  wrote  to  Elizabeth  :  "  I 
pray  you  never  again  to  permit  propositions  so  disadvantageous 
and  dishonourable  for  me  as  those  to  which  the  Bishop  of  Ross 
has  been  persuaded  to  listen.  As  I  have  bidden  Mr  KnoUys  tell 
you,  I  have  made  a  solemn  vow  to  God  never  to  retreat  from  the 
place  to  which  God  has  called  me."^ 

To  this  end  had  the  intrigues  of  Murray,  Cecil,  and  Elizabeth 
come.  Mary  stood  on  her  innocence  and  her  right,  and  hence- 
forth there  would  be  a  queen's  party,  a  king's  party,  and  civil  war 
more  or  less  open  in  Scotland.  Mary,  or  her  agent,  despatched 
letters  warning  her  adherents  (with  gross  exaggerations)  that 
Elizabeth  meant  to  do  what  Henry  VIIL  had  aimed  at  while  she 
was  a  baby,  to  seize  the  child  prince  and  the  fortresses.  The 
Hamiltons,  Argyll,  and  Huntly  were  in  arms,  and  though  Chatel- 
herault  and  Herries  were  still  detained  in  England,  Murray  would 


MURRAY   INTRIGUES    WITH    NORFOLK   (1569).  215 

find  the  Border  beacons  lighted  as  he  returned,  and  ambush  laid 
for  him  on  the  English  Border  by  Westmoreland  and  the  Nortons. 

This  posture  of  affairs  alarmed  Murray,  who  in  January  still  hung, 
much  in  debt,  about  the  English  Court.  From  his  situation  arose  a 
new  intrigue.  England  was  seething  with  plots.  Leicester,  Throck- 
morton, and  other  Protestants  were  anxious  about  the  succession, 
and  jealous  of  Cecil.  The  Northern  nobles,  no  less  anxious,  but 
more  Catholic,  and  jealous  of  Norfolk,  worked  for  a  marriage  be- 
tween Mary  and  Don  John  of  Austria,  which  could  only  be  secured 
by  open  civil  war.  Norfolk  himself  was  still  anxious  to  wed  Mary 
(though  to  Elizabeth  he  denied  it),  and  had  a  foot  in  each  camp. 
Elizabeth  was  being  pressed  by  Spain  for  restitution  of  spoils 
piratically  taken  by  Hawkins.  Meanwhile  Scotland  might  be  in 
a  flame  if  Murray  did  not  return,  and  if  he  tried  to  return,  his  throat 
would  probably  be  cut  on  the  Border. 

In  these  circumstances  Murray  approached  Norfolk.  They  had 
been  in  touch  before  at  York,  when  Norfolk  distantly  hinted  at  his 
desire  to  marry  Mary.  Murray  now  proposed  to  secure  his  own  safe 
return  by  reviving  the  subject,  and  gaining  Norfolk  to  secure  Mary's 
assent  to  peace  on  the  Border  and  to  his  own  safety  from  West- 
moreland. The  man  who,  in  company  with  some  of  Darnley's 
murderers,  had  just  accused  his  sister  of  Darnley's  murder,  now 
sought  the  grace  of  the  man  who  had  admitted  his  strong  belief 
in  her  guilt,  and  who  desired  to  take  her  for  his  bedfellow  !  The 
Norfolk  marriage  could  not  conceivably  be  approved  of  by  Murray. 
Whatever  strengthened  Mary  weakened  him,  whatever  helped  her 
cause  threatened  Presbyterianism,  and  Murray  was  godly.  But  the 
danger  from  the  marriage  was  remote ;  Elizabeth  assuredly  would 
not  consent  to  it :  the  danger  in  Scotland,  and  to  Murray's  own 
throat,  was  imminent.  He  therefore  sought  an  interview  with 
Norfolk,  of  which,  when  Norfolk  was  under  suspicion,  Murray 
later  made  his  own  report  to  Elizabeth  (October  29,    1569). 

He  says  that  in  his  private  discourse  with  Norfolk,  at  York  in 
October  1568,  he  did  not  "smell"  what  the  Duke  intended;  he 
partly  smelt  it  from  the  Duke's  language,  but  now  he  understands. 
Before  leaving  England  he  met  Norfolk  in  the  park  at  Hampton 
Court,  told  him  that  his  sister's  marriage  to  a  "  godly  personage " 
would  reconcile  him  to  her,  and  that,  of  all  godly  and  honourable 
personages,  he  preferred  Norfolk.  Murray  also  sent  in  a  letter  of 
Norfolk's,  which  was  produced  against  the  Duke  later,  at  his  trial.' 


2l6  MURRAY   IN   SPRING    1569. 

Lesley,  Bishop  of  Ross,  professing  to  set  forth  what  Norfolk  told 
him,  represents  Murray  as  pressing  the  marriage  on  the  Duke  with 
great  fervour. ^  It  is,  unhappily,  impossible  to  believe  any  of  the 
three,  when  not  corroborated.  In  any  case,  Murray  certainly  led 
Norfolk  to  believe  that  he  approved  of  the  nuptials,  and  afterwards 
revealed  the  whole  (or  as  much  of  it  as  he  pleased)  to  Elizabeth. 
Among  the  Lennox  MSS.  at  Cambridge  is  a  curious  account  of 
a  statement  which  Murray  desired  Leicester  to  impart  orally  to 
Elizabeth.     It  was  sharpening  the  axe  for  the  Duke's  neck. 

As  a  consequence  of  Murray's  conversations  with  him  at  Hampton 
Court  in  the  park,  Norfolk  induced  Mary  to  quiet  her  own  party, 
sending  to  her  Robert  Melville.     On  January  30  she  certainly  wrote 
to  Hamilton,  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews,  bidding  her  party  hold 
together  closely,  and  watch  Murray  well,  "  who,  as  I  hope,  will  not 
use   extremity  so   hastily." "      Probably  her    hope   was    based    on 
Murray's  conversation  with   Norfolk.      Murray  (by  February  8)  was 
safely    back   in    Stirling   Castle,    and   if  he   had   any  debt   of  grat- 
itude to  his  sister,  paid  it  by  sending  to  Cecil  a  letter  from'^her 
to  Mar  of  a  kind  which  she  could  not  wish  Elizabeth  to  see.  12    This 
letter  Cecil  was  to  return,  as  Mar  (a  man  of  honour)  would  not 
have  her  letter  exposed   to   her   injury.     In  a  week  Murray  con- 
vened the  forces  of  the  realm  south  of  Tay  to  meet  at  Glasgow, 
where,   in    Lennox's    absence,    Argyll    was    apt    to    be    powerful: 
Mary's  party,  indeed,  was  attacking   Lennox's  retainers,  especially 
the   laird  of  Minto,  a  Stewart,  and  an  active  agent  for  Darnley's 
father.       Murray    was    also    trying    to    obtain    the    extradition    of 
Bothwell    from    Denmark,    where,    so    far,    he    had    been    brag- 
ging and  promising  to  secure  the  Orkneys  for  the  Danish  crown. 
By  March  11,  for  which  day  he  had  summoned  his  levies,  Murray 
had  to  tell  Elizabeth  of  his  failures,  and  of  the  excesses  of  Mary's 
friends.     Chatelherault  held  her  commission  :  the  queen's  and  king's 
parties  were  at  strife,  and  Murray  was  at  Stirling.     He  offered,  if  the 
queen's  men  would  acknowledge  the  king's  (that  is,  his  own)  auth- 
ority, to  submit  all  to  an  assembly  of  the  whole  nobility.     He  uttered 
a  proclamation  to  the  effect  that  "Satan  had  persuaded  the  king's 
mother  to  enter  England,"  where  he  and  his  party  had  been  honour- 
ably acquitted  of  all  wrong,  in  consequence  of  their  accusing  her  of 
murder,  a. fact  proved  by  her  letters.     All  this  proclamation  is  put 
mto  the  mouth  of  her  innocent  child.^^     Thus  disinterestedly  had 
Satan  worked  for  the  triumph  of  the  godly. 


SCHEMES   FOR   MARY'S   RELEASE.  21/ 

Articles  of  compromise  were  drawn  up,  but  never  agreed  upon,  by 
the  queen's  lords  at  Glasgow  (March  13).-^*  But  at  Stirling  Cassilis, 
Harries,  and  the  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews  entered  themselves  as 
hostages  to  Murray  (March  14),  so  says  the  'Diurnal';  but  Murray 
names  Chatelherault  in  place  of  the  prelate.  A  convention  of  the 
nobles  was  fixed  for  April  i  o  at  Edinburgh.^^  Murray  then  executed 
justice  on  robbers  on  the  lower  Tweed,  and  released  Lord  Seton, 
who  had  been  his  prisoner.  At  the  Edinburgh  Convention  of  April 
10  Herries  was  seized  and  imprisoned  in  Edinburgh  Castle;  Chatel- 
herault followed  him  thither,  and  Murray  had  thus  executed  a  coup 
d'etat}^  His  excuse  was  that  they  declined  to  sign  a  paper  acknow- 
ledging the  king.  Murray  had  just  sent  his  favourite  agent.  Wood, 
to  Elizabeth,  who  doubtless  "  allowed  "  his  new  proceedings.  Mary 
deeply  regretted  the  events.  She  had  hopes  from  France,  however 
— the  eternal  vain  Stuart  hopes.  Among  the  English  nobles  there 
had  been  a  plot  to  arrest  Cecil  and  marry  Mary  to  Norfolk;  and 
Norfolk  was  also  mixed  up  in  another  plot,  to  reach  his  ends  by  the 
aid  of  Spain  and  the  Spanish  Ambassador.  Cecil  discovered,  and 
with  much  tact  stopped,  the  perils  to  himself:  Norfolk's  marriage 
project  remained  alive,  flattered  by  many  of  the  English  lords, 
and  by  Mary's  old  friend,  Throckmorton,  but  concealed  from 
Elizabeth.  For  the  success  of  these  schemes  it  seemed  desirable 
that  Mary  should  become  an  Anglican  :  she  actually  listened  to 
three  weekly  British  sermons  all  through  Lent ;  and  even  Mr 
Froude,  usually  pitiless,  writes,  "It  is  frightful  to  think  of  what 
she  must  have  suffered." 

Despite,  or  in  consequence  of,  Murray's  coup  d'etat  in  Scotland, 
despite  Huntly's  surrender  to  him  on  May  10,  Elizabeth  began 
once  more  to  try  to  emancipate  herself  from  her  embarrassing 
captive.  Lesley,  who  was  deep  in  the  intrigues  against  Cecil,  with 
Norfolk,  and  with  the  Spanish  Ambassador,  de  Guereau,  was  chosen 
to  negotiate  with  Elizabeth  for  Mary's  release.  He  says  that  he 
drew  up  a  long  list  of  articles.  They  secured  the  English  succes- 
sion for  Mary,  and  restored  her,  with  an  amnesty,  and  punishment 
of  Bothwell,  if  he  was  extradited. ^''  Cecil  offered  other  projects, 
only  one  of  which  was  a  slight  advance  on  what  Elizabeth  had 
vainly  suggested  after  the  reading  of  the  casket  letters.  Mary, 
writing  to  Chatelherault,  bade  him  be  of  good  hope.  To  La 
Mothe  Fenelon  she  said  that,  whatever  promises  she  might  sign 
to  get  out  of  England,  she  would  always  be  France's  friend. ^'^     She 


2l8  NORFOLK   A   SUITOR   OF   MARY. 

had  a  slight  illness  after  taking  medicine,  and,  perhaps  lest  she 
should  be  accused  of  poisoning  her  prisoner,  Elizabeth  seemed 
ready  to  let  her  go.  Certain  articles  were  sent  by  Elizabeth  to 
Murray  in  the  care  of  John  Wood,  an  extreme  Puritan  and  deadly 
enemy  of  Mary.  At  the  same  time  Mary  sent,  by  Lord  Boyd, 
to  her  party  the  Duke  of  Norfolk's  marriage  proposals.  She  had 
not  accepted  them  with  enthusiasm,  though  backed  by  Leicester, 
Pembroke,  and  most  of  the  English  Council.  To  win  Norfolk 
meant,  for  Mary,  to  lose  France  and  Spain ;  moreover,  she  would 
not  wed  Norfolk  without  Elizabeth's  consent.  Meanwhile  Elizabeth 
was  not  apprised  of  the  Norfolk  marriage, — her  lords  seem  to  have 
expected  the  idea  to  be  mooted  to  her  by  Murray.  But  Murray 
was  putting  down  the  North,  reducing  Huntly  to  obedience, 
insulting  Mary  in  proclamations,  and  in  no  mood  to  secure  her 
freedom,  or  comply  with  the  suggestions  carried  to  him  by  Wood 
(May  1 6).  19 

Though  Wood  was  despatched  on  May  i6,  he  does  not  seem  ta 
have  hurried,  for  Murray,  at  Aberdeen,  did  not  answer  Elizabeth 
till  June  5.  He  said  that  Elizabeth's  ideas  of  the  terms  for  Mary's 
release  were  "  utterly  unlooked  for,"  which  might  be  rendered 
"utterly  unwelcome."  He  asked  for  delay;  he  would  try  to  find  a 
fit  negotiator. ^*^  He  sent  Wood  to  Lethington  (June  10),  who  was 
at  home,  suffering  from  "  an  infirmity  in  his  feet,"  the  beginning 
of  his  fatal  paralysis.  Wood  informed  Cecil  that  Lethington  was 
willing  to  come  as  negotiator  "  if  other  impediments  do  not  hinder." 
Murray  was  "  driving  time "  as  to  arranging  the  unwelcome  com- 
promise on  which  Elizabeth  was  insisting.  Murray  also  wrote  to 
Norfolk  in  such  terms  that  Norfolk  tells  him  on  July  i,  "You  have 
not  only  purchased  a  faithful  friend,  but  also  a  natural  brother" — 
that  is,  brother-in-law.  Norfolk  says  that  he  is  betrothed  to  Mary ;, 
he  has  gone  so  far  that  he  cannot  "in  conscience"  draw  back. 
Indeed  we  find  Mary  writing  affectionate  letters  to  Norfolk  (August 
24).^^  The  tone  of  submission  is  disagreeably  like  that  of  the 
casket  letters  to  Bothwell.  But  if  Norfolk  cannot  retreat,  neither 
can  he  go  on  till  Murray  removes  the  "  empechements " — that  is, 
consents  to  the  annulling  of  Mary's  marriage  with  Bothwell,  which 
now  she  herself  recognised  as  illegal,  a  thing  she  could  not  well  do 
at  Lochleven  when  she  was  (Nau  says)  with  child  by  him.  Norfolk 
therefore  asks  Murray  to  make  haste,  and  to  receive  Mary's  com- 
mission from  Lord  Boyd.     This  was  the  letter  which  Murray  later 


MURRAY  DESERTS   NORFOLK.  219 

sent  to  Elizabeth  as  evidence  against  Norfolk,  his  "faithful  friend 
and  natural  brother."  ^^  It  is  evidence  that,  as  late  as  July  i, 
Norfolk  thought  Murray  his  friend,  and  an  advocate  of  his 
marriage  with  Mary. 

Boyd  met  Murray  at  Inverness,  and  Lesley  says  that  Murray 
received  the  terms  of  compromise  very  well,  and  called  a  convention 
to  consider  them  at  Perth. -^  The  convention  met  on  July  25-28; 
but  Murray  was  hesitating,  as  Throckmorton  learned  from  Wood, 
and  from  a  letter  sent  by  Lethington.  Throckmorton  therefore, 
in  a  cyphered  letter,  advised  Murray  to  trust  Lethington,  "who  is 
undoubtedly  the  wisest  and  sufficientest  man  to  provide  for  him 
and  all  the  rest.  For  if  he  leaves  to  be  advised  by  him,  he  and 
his  country  will  be  in  the  greatest  peril  and  confusion"  (July  20).^* 
But  Murray  had  made  up  his  mind  not  to  trust  Lethington,  who 
was  on  the  side  of  Mary ;  for  the  very  good  reason  (as  he  told 
Morton  frankly)  that  he  expected  her  return  to  power. 

Lethington  was  also  much  influenced  by  his  wife,  one  of  the  queen's 
Maries ;  moreover,  he  was,  as  the  phrase  runs,  "  in  a  cleft  stick." 
His  part  in  Darnley's  murder  was  well  known.  Any  quarrel  with  a 
powerful  lord  might  bring  on  him  an  indictment.  Mary  also  held 
proofs  against  him,  as  Wood  had  informed  him  on  June  11,  1568. 
But  it  seemed  safer  to  make  his  peace  with  Mary  by  procuring  her 
restoration  (he  appears  by  this  time  to  have  received  "  assurances  " 
from  her),  than  to  take  the  chance  of  what  might  come  out  against 
him  in  Scotland.  Again  he  had,  for  the  hour,  Elizabeth  to  back 
him  in  Mary's  restoration,  and  he  perhaps  hoped  for  the  success 
of  his  really  unique  public  object,  the  union  of  the  crowns  of  the 
two  countries.  Throckmorton,  who  was  in  favour  of  the  Norfolk 
marriage  to  secure  the  succession,  therefore  advised  Murray  to  be 
guided  by  Lethington.  Had  Lethington  known  Mary's  mind,  he 
would  have  learned  that  he  was  unforgiven. 

A  glance  at  the  names  of  the  assembly  in  Perth  (July  28)  shows 
that  Mary's  enemies  were  in  force.  Here  were  Mr  Froude's  "  small 
gallant  knot  of  men  who  had  stood  by  the  Reformation  through 
good  and  evil."  There  were  Murray,  Morton,  Glencairn,  and  the 
Master  of  Marischal ;  with  Lindsay  and  Ruthven,  Sempil,  and  the 
traitor  Bishop  of  Orkney ;  James  Makgill,  the  enemy  of  Lethington, 
and  Bellenden,  the  Justice  -  Clerk.  The  burghs,  under  the 
influence  of  the  preachers,  were  hostile,  and  the  Provost  of  and 
member  for  Glasgow  was  Stewart  of  Minto,  Lennox's  trusted  retainer,. 


220        MURRAY'S    PARTY   REJECT   MARY'S   PROPOSALS. 

while  Erskine  of  Dun  represented  Montrose.  On  the  other  side, 
Argyll  (though  named),  did  not  appear ;  Chatelherault  and  Herries, 
taken  prisoners  "  under  trust,"  were  locked  up  in  Edinburgh  Castle : 
the  temper  of  the  gathering  was  shown  by  the  fact  that  Lethington 
needed  an  escort  of  Huntly's  and  Atholl's  men.^^ 

Lesley  declares  that  Murray  and  Wood  made  a  fair  show  of 
backing  Mary's  restoration,  but  secretly  urged  their  partisans  "  to 
cry  out  against  the  same."  ^^  Murray  thus  saved  his  credit  with 
Elizabeth.  The  assembly  rejected  the  proposal  for  Mary's  "  equality 
of  government."  '^'^  Mary's  demand  for  an  assent  to  the  annulment 
of  her  marriage  with  Bothwell  (without  which  she  could  not  espouse 
Norfolk)  was  refused  by  forty  votes  to  nine,  offence  being  taken  at 
her  styling  herself  "  Queen,"  and  the  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews 
"Head  of  the  Church,"  a  truly  Stuart -like  error  of  judgment. 
Lethington  argued  for  Mary  against  Makgill,  and  taunted  the 
adversaries  with  refusing  now  what  they  had  imprisoned  Mary  for 
not  granting  two  years  earlier.  The  Treasurer,  Richardson,  took 
note  that  Lethington,  his  brother,  and  James  Balfour  had  "  opposed 
the  king's  authority,"  and  that  whosoever  did  so  in  future  would  be 
-deemed  a  traitor. ^^ 

Mr  Froude  represents  Murray  as  now  influenced  against  Leth- 
ington by  the  statements  of  Paris,  Bothwell's  valet,  engaged  in 
the  Darnley  murder.  He  implicated  Lethington,  but  Murray  and 
every  one  knew  Lethington's  guilt.  Moreover,  Paris  was  not 
examined  (or,  if  examined,  his  statement  of  an  earlier  date  is  not 
produced)  till  twelve  days  a/fer  the  convention  at  Perth.  After 
the  convention  was  over,  on  August  9  and  10,  Paris  was  examined 
at  St  Andrews,  apparently  before  Wood,  George  Buchanan,  and 
Ramsay,  a  retainer  of  Murray,  who  wrote  the  depositions  in  French. 

The  whole  affair  was  suspicious.  Paris  had  been  extradited,  as 
we  saw,  and  handed  over  to  Clark,  captain  of  the  Scots  in  Danish 
service,  on  October  30,  1568.  He  might  have  been  sent  home 
in  time  to  be  examined  before  the  English  commissioners  in  mid- 
December  of  that  year.  Nay,  in  an  early  form  of  Buchanan's 
*  Detection  of  Queen  Mary,'  which  was  ready  in  manuscript  for 
the  Westminster  Commission,  it  is  urged  that  Paris  ought  to  be 
produced  as  the  man  who  knows  most  about  the  murder.^^ 

But  Paris  was  not  produced.  He  would  have  exposed  the 
damning  fact  that  some  of  Mary's  accusers  and  Murray's  asso- 
ciates were  themselves  guilty.     According   to   Murray's   report  to 


CRAWFORD   IMPEACHES   LETHINGTON.  221 

Elizabeth,  Paris  did  not  reach  Leith  till  June  1569,  and  his  ex- 
amination was  put  off  during  Murray's  northern  progress.  Eliz- 
abeth (August  22)  tried  to  stop  the  execution  of  Paris,  Murray 
replied  that  Paris  had  been  executed  on  August  16  at  St  Andrews. 
But  Murray,  as  we  shall  see,  did  not  send  Paris's  "  authentick " 
depositions  to  Cecil  till  the  end  of  October,  when  he  found  that 
he  and  Lethington  (whom  Paris  implicated  in  Darnley's  murder) 
had  irretrievably  broken  with  each  other.^*^ 

As  for  Paris,  he  had  made  a  declaration  on  August  9.  He 
then  accused  Bothwell  and  others,  but  not  Mary.  On  August 
10,  "interrogated,"  and  probably  under  fear  of  torture,  he  accused 
Mary.  His  depositions  are,  in  many  points,  irreconcilable  with 
each  other,  with  probability,  and  with  the  dates  of  events  as 
presented  by  whomsoever  did  present  "  Cecil's  Journal."  In  one 
or  two  other  points  they  singularly  corroborate  statements  in  the 
Lennox  MSS.  Whatever  their  value  as  against  Mary,  the  deposi- 
tions put  an  invaluable  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  enemies  of 
Lethington,   now  Mary's  chief  supporter.^^ 

While  the  charges  of  Paris  hung  over  the  head  of  Lethington, 
Elizabeth  was  upbraiding  Murray  with  his  conduct  of  the  assembly 
at  Perth,  and  with  its  results.  Unless  he  behaves  better  instantly, 
Elizabeth  "  will  proceed  of  ourselves  to  such  a  determination  with 
the  Queen  of  Scots  as  we  shall  find  honourable  and  meet  for 
ourselves.   .  .  .  We  doubt  how  you  will  like  it"  (August   12).^^ 

Norfolk  also  expressed  his  disgust  (August  14).  On  the  20th 
August  Elizabeth  wrote,  forbidding  Murray  to  besiege  Mary's  best 
strength,  the  Castle  of  Dumbarton,  held  for  her  by  Lord  Fleming. 
Murray  replied  (September  5)  by  a  temporising  letter  to  Elizabeth 
from  Stirling.  On  the  same  day  he  answered  Cecil's  remonstrances 
about  Murray's  altered  behaviour  to  Lethington.  "  The  fault 
thereof,  as  God  knows,  was  never  in  me." 

The  bolt  had  fallen :  some  news  of  Paris's  confessions  had 
reached  Lennox,  and  Lennox  was  thought  to  have  caused  his  re- 
tainer, Thomas  Crawford,  who  generally  did  the  denunciations  for 
him,  to  accuse  Lethington.  The  Secretary,  with  AthoU  and  others, 
had  held  a  Highland  hunting  meeting  near  Dunkeld,  doubtless  for 
political  purposes.  They  were  summoned  to  a  meeting  at  Stirling 
by  Murray  on  September  2.  Next  day  Crawford  entered  the  council- 
chamber,  fell  on  his  knees,  and  impeached  Lethington  and  James 
Balfour  of  Darnley's  death.     This  might  have  been  done  long  ago, 


222  LETHINGTON'S   SIN   AGAINST   MARY. 

on  Hepburn  of  Bowton's  confession,  but  that  had  been  suppressed 
by  Murray's  party.  Now  was  the  convenient  season.  Lethington 
offered  to  find  sureties  for  his  appearance  when  summoned ;  these 
were  refused,  and  he  was  locked  up  in  Stirling  Castle.^^  Hunsdon 
thought  that  he  was  imprisoned,  really,  for  intriguing  on  Mary's 
side  north  of  the  Highland  line.  Lethington,  later,  learned  that 
Cecil  had  discovered  that  Lennox  gave  Crawford  no  commission 
to  accuse  him.  In  that  case  Crawford  either  acted  on  his  own 
motion,  not  on  that  of  Lennox,  or  was  moved  by  Lethington's  many 
enemies.^*  In  no  long  time  Maitland,  in  Edinburgh  Castle, 
then  held  by  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange,  his  friend,  was  in  cipher  cor- 
respondence with  Mary.  He  even  hoped  to  bring  the  preachers 
to  her  side,   "howsoever  I  think  Nox  is  inflexible." ^^ 

Mary  had  once  again  the  Flower  of  Wit  for  her  partisan,  and 
henceforward  Lethington  wavered  no  more.  But  Mary  never 
forgave  him  ;  she  hated  him  living,  and  when  he  was  dead  her 
detestation  pursued  him.  Ever  since  she  was  taken  at  Carberry 
Hill  she  had  loathed  him.  Lethington  had  committed  some  in- 
expiable offence.  "  Yourselves,"  wrote  Randolph  to  Lethington 
and  Kirkcaldy,  "  wrote  against  her,  fought  against  her,  and  were 
the  chiefest  cause  of  her  apprehension,  and  imprisonment,  and 
demission  of  the  crown."  These  acts  had  Lethington  committed 
immediately  after  Mary  saved  his  life  from  the  dagger  of  Bothwell. 
But  Randolph  adds,  "  With  somewhat  more,  that  we  itiight  say, 
if  it  were  not  to  grieve  you  too  much  herein."  ^^  If  the  falsification 
of  the  casket  letters  is  hinted  at,  it  is  not  the  only  case  in  which 
Kirkcaldy  was  accused  of  forgery,  not  that  his  hand  could  have 
forged  the  casket  letters. 

On  the  unhappy  Mary,  and  on  Norfolk,  another  bolt  was  falling. 
About  September  6,  just  after  Lethington's  arrest,  Elizabeth  heard 
of  Norfolk's  marriage  project.  He  had  ever  been  too  timid  to 
speak  to  her  and  ask  for  permission.  The  idea  of  another  woman 
being  married,  most  of  all  Mary,  always  drove  Elizabeth  into  fury. 
She  heard  of  the  thing  we  know  not  how,  and  summoned  Norfolk 
to  her  presence.  What  she  said  may  be  guessed  :  Norfolk  retreated 
to  Andover,  warning  Cecil  that  Murray  had  broken  out,  and  was 
aiming  at  the  crown  of  Scotland ;  "  God  send  him  such  luck  as 
others  have  had  that  followed  his  course."  Such  luck  had  Murray 
in  no  long  time. 2''  Elizabeth  instantly  removed  Mary  to  Tutbury, 
which  was  garrisoned,  to  prevent  her  from  being  liberated  by  the 


LETHINGTON  TRUE  TO  NORFOLK.         223 

Catholics  of  the  north.  Dan  Ker  of  Shilstock  Braes  was  her  rider 
on  the  Border,  but  by  September  18  the  Border  was  overawed  by 
Murray  with  a  great  force.  The  Regent's  position  was  not,  however, 
wholly  enviable.  Elizabeth,  angry  as  she  was,  now  wished,  once  for 
all,  to  be  rid  of  Mary,  to  send  her  into  Scotland  to  take  her  fortune. 
But  she  stipulated  that  she  must  have  six  hostages — three  earls  and 
three  lords — as  sureties  that  Mary  "  shall  live  her  natural  life  without 
any  sinister  means  to  shorten  the  same." 

Elizabeth  also  bade  her  envoy,  Henry  Carey,  ask  Murray  bluntly 
whether  he  had  treated,  behind  her  back,  for  the  Norfolk  marriage 
(September  21).^^  Norfolk  was  sent  for  to  Windsor,  but  feigned 
himself  too  ill  to  travel.  Several  English  partisans  of  the  Norfolk 
marriage  were  held  to  examination,  including  Throckmorton.  Lesley 
was  also  examined.  The  bishop  told  as  much  truth  as  he  thought 
was  already  known,  and  as  many  fables  as  he  deemed  likely  to  pass 
undetected.  Murray,  in  a  letter  to  Elizabeth  of  October  29,  told 
what  he  deemed  convenient  about  the  business,  and  enclosed 
Norfolk's  brotherly  letter  to  himself.  But  there  was  a  point  beyond 
which  even  Lethington  could  not  go,  and  that  point  had  been 
passed  by  Murray.  He  invited  Lethington  to  accuse  Norfolk ;  but 
Lethington,  he  says,  "flatly  denied  to  me  in  any  sort  to  be  an 
accuser  of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  thinking  he  shall  escape  these 
storms."  Not  being  so  sanguine,  Murray  was  an  accuser  of  the 
duke.  Murray  ends  by  communicating  the  blessed  news  that  a 
Catholic  gentleman  "  has  become  a  good  Christian  man,  and  a 
favourer  of  the  Gospel."  Finally,  as  Lethington,  being  altogether 
reprobate,  will  not  betray  Norfolk,  Murray  sends,  what  he  had  kept 
back  for  two  months,  Paris's  confession  accusing  Lethington  of 
Darnley's  murder,  "  in  authentic  form."  Perhaps  he  had,  less 
formally,  sent  it  before.^^ 

Meanwhile  Lethington,  arrested  at  Stirling,  had  been  carried  to 
Edinburgh,  and  lodged  in  the  house  of  one  David  Forrester,  a 
friend  of  Murray's.  It  was  not  deemed  safe  to  place  him  in  the 
castle,  commanded  by  his  friend  Kirkcaldy.  Morton  hated  Lething- 
ton and  James  Balfour,  who,  however,  was  allowed  to  live  in  Fife 
under  heavy  sureties.  But  Maitland  did  not  long  remain  in  durance. 
James  Kirkcaldy  visited  him  while  at  supper  at  Forrester's,  and 
the  same  evening  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange  brought  a  letter,  forged  in 
Murray's  name,  obtained  Lethington's  release,  and  carried  him  to 
the  castle,  where  he  was  safe.      Robert  Melville,  under  examination 


224  THE   REBELLION   OF   THE   NORTH    (1569). 

in  October  1573,  said  that  he  thought  Kirkcaldy  of  Grange  was 
himself  the  forger.  Lethington  was  in  the  castle  by  October  23. 
"A  day  of  law  "  was  set  for  him  on  November  21,  but  by  November 
5  Drury  knew  that  he  had  called  all  his  friends  to  back  him  in  the 
old  Scottish  way,  —  indeed  he  was  sending  out  his  circulars  on 
October  31.*^  He  professed  himself  ready,  after  his  trial,  to  undergo 
English  justice,  as  an  English  subject,  regarding  his  traffic  with 
Norfolk. 

There  was  no  day  of  law  for  Lethington.  Morton  was  afraid  to 
appear  as  accuser  ■  though  he  says  that  Lethington  had  confessed 
to  him  his  guilt. *^  The  town  was  full  of  Lethington's  armed  sup- 
porters. Murray  convened  their  chiefs,  pointed  out  that  they  had  in- 
vited him  to  be  their  Regent,  and  now  opposed  him.  He  prorogued 
the  trial,  awaiting  instructions  from  Elizabeth.  Civil  war  was  thus 
postponed.  He  had  heard  (November  22)  of  the  rebellion  of  the 
North  of  England,  which  had  risen  without  Norfolk.  The  English 
Catholics — Northumberland,  Westmoreland,  and  the  rest — failed  to 
rescue  Mary,  who  was  transferred  from  the  care  of  Shrewsbury  to 
that  of  Huntingdon,  and  after  a  vain  parade  the  leaders  fled  across 
the  Border.  On  December  8  Murray  mustered  his  forces  to  resist 
the  entry  of  the  English  rebels  ;  he  again  summoned  them  to 
Peebles,  to  resist  "the  abominable  mass"  on  December  20.  The 
English  chiefs,  in  sorry  state,  fled  to  the  Black  Laird  of  Ormiston, 
one  of  Darnley's  murderers,  to  the  Laird's  Jock,  and  Jock  o'  the 
Side  (December  2 1).'*^  Murray  marched  to  Hawick.  The  English 
Government  hoped  to  capture  the  fugitives  by  bribing  the  Black 
Laird  with  a  free  pardon  for  Darnley's  murder. ^^  But  even 
Ormiston,  a  man  stained  with  every  crime,  could  not  be  bought 
to  break  the  law  of  Border  hospitality.  Possibly  he  did  not  get  the 
chance.  A  convenient  traitor  was  found  in  Hector  Armstrong, 
whose  name  became  a  proverb  for  perfidy.  Aided  by  Martin 
Elliot,  he  beguiled  and  took  Northumberland,  despite  a  gallant 
attempt  at  rescue  by  Borderers  of  both  countries.  Black  Ormiston 
seized  his  moment,  and  robbed  Lady  Northumberland  of  all  her 
own  and  her  husband's  jewels,  clothes,  and  money. ^*  Northum- 
berland was  handed  over  to  Murray,  but  the  Kers  honourably 
entertained  Westmoreland  at  their  strong  Castle  of  Ferniehirst,  near 
Jedburgh.  On  January  2  Northumberland  was  sent  to  occupy 
Mary's  old  rooms  at  Lochleven. 

Having  now,  in  Northumberland's  person,  something  to  offer  by 


MURRAY  TRIES  TO  GET  POSSESSION  OF  MARY  (1570).      225 

way  of  exchange  or  barter,  Murray  asked  Elizabeth  to  hand  over 
Mary,  her  Hfe  being  guaranteed  by  the  deUvery  of  hostages.  Among 
others,  Morton  and  Mar  signed  the  request,  and  Ruthven,  who,  says 
Nau,  had  been  making  love  to  Mary  when  she  was  in  Lochleven. 
John  Knox,  "with  his  one  foot  in  the  grave,"  on  January  2,  1570, 
advised  Cecil  that  "if  he  struck  not  at  the  root"  (Mary),  "the 
branches  that  appear  to  be  broken "  (her  party)  "  will  bud  again 
with  greater  force." 

In  exacting  hostages  for  Mary's  safety,  Elizabeth  might  have  done 
worse  than  stipulate  that  Knox  should  be  one  of  them.  In  the 
instructions  of  the  bearer  of  Knox's  letter,  Elphinstone,  were  com- 
prised Murray's  terms  for  the  bargain.  Lesley  heard  of  the  affair 
from  Mary  herself,  as  did  La  Mothe  Fenelon,  and  the  exchange  did 
not  take  place.*^ 

Lesley,  however,  was  imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  he  thought  because 
Murray  revealed  his  part  in  the  negotiations  with  Norfolk.  All  Scot- 
land, wrote  Hunsdon  from  Berwick,  was  infuriated  by  the  demand 
for  Northumberland's  extradition.  Sadleyr  did  not  believe  that 
jNIurray  would  dare  to  give  him  up.  Murray,  who  had  behaved 
with  humanity  to  Lady  Northumberland,  rescuing  her  from  the 
Black  Laird,  made  an  attempt  to  take  Dumbarton,  held  by  Fleming 
for  Mary,  but  failed.  He  was  at  Stirling  on  January  14.  On  the 
23rd,  as  he  rode  through  Linlithgow,  Mary's  birthplace,  he  was  shot, 
from  the  window  of  a  house  in  the  street,  by  Hamilton  of  Bothwell- 
haugh.  The  miscreant  occupied  a  house  belonging  to  Archbishop 
Hamilton  :  he  covered  the  floor  of  the  little  room  wherein  he  lay 
with  a  feather  mattress,  to  deaden  the  sound  of  his  booted  feet ;  he 
darkened  the  room  with  a  black  curtain  hung  behind  him ;  barred 
the  door  opening  on  the  street,  and  had  a  swift  horse  saddled  at  the 
back  door.  He  fired  :  Murray  reeled  in  his  saddle  :  Bothwellhaugh 
mounted  and  spurred.  He  cleared  a  fence  which  stopped  his  pur- 
suers, by  dint  of  sticking  his  dirk  into  his  horse's  flank,  and  galloped 
into  Hamilton,  where  the  Archbishop  and  Arbroath,  son  of  Chatel- 
herault,  received  him  with  acclamations.  The  Regent  died  with 
calmness  and  fortitude,  slain  by  a  man  whom  he  had  spared  after 
Langside  fight. 

The  character  of  Murray  has  been  debated  with  superfluous  fury. 
To  Mr  Froude  he  seemed  "noble"  and  stainless:  through  Mr 
Froude's  pages  he  moves  crowned  with  a  halo.  "  He  impressed 
de  Silva  with  the  very  highest  opinion  of  his  character."  *^     We  turn 

VOL.    II.  P 


226         VENGEANCE  OVERTAKES  MURRAY. 

to  de  Silva.  He  reports  that  Murray  promised  "  to  do  his  best  for 
his  sister.  I  am  more  indined  to  believe  that  he  will  do  it  for 
himself,  as  he  is  a  Scot  and  a  heretic."  *^  That  was  the  very  high 
opinion  of  Murray's  character  which  de  Silva  conceived,  and  it  was 
proved  correct. 

The  sentimental  defenders  of  Mary  speak  of  Murray  as  a  bastard, 
U7i  grcdin,  a  lickspittle,  a  hypocrite,  and  a  "beaten  hound."  He 
was  a  Calvinistic  opportunist.  Believing  in  union  with  England, 
and  in  Protestantism,  he  steadily  did  his  best  for  these  causes.  He 
had  a  pension  from  Elizabeth,  and  took  a  rich  present  from  France. 
He  was  undeniably  grasping  :  Kirk  land's  or  maiden's  lands  came 
alike  welcome  to  him.  He  was  ambitious,  but  it  is  vainly  asserted 
that  he  schemed  to  win  the  crown.  An  opportunist  of  that  age  had 
to  "  look  through  his  fingers  "  at  crime.  He  had  a  guilty  foreknow- 
ledge of  Riccio's  murder,  with  the  danger  involved  in  it  to  Mary  and 
her  unborn  heir.  He  was  involved  in  a  band  between  Bothwell, 
Morton,  and  other  nobles  against  Darnley ;  but  this  band  was 
probably  not  of  a  homicidal  character.  He  left  Edinburgh  on 
the  day  of  Darnley's  murder.  He  entertained  the  murderers  at 
a  little  dinner.  To  accuse  his  sister  of  the  assassination  he  em- 
ployed her  accomplices, — if  she  was  guilty.  He  backed,  by  his 
oath,  Morton's  oath  that  the  casket  papers  had  been  in  no  re- 
spect tampered  with.  In  Mr  Froude's  opinion  they  had  been 
tampered  with,  the  band  for  Darnley's  murder  had  been  removed. 
"  If  it  was  done  with  Murray's  fullest  consent,  his  conduct  might 
well  be  defended."  Perjury  is  not  easily  defended,  and  Murray 
cannot  have  been  ignorant  that  Hepburn  of  Bowton's  confession, 
which  he  put  in  against  his  sister,  had  been  mutilated  to  shield 
his  associates.^^ 

An  opportunist,  in  an  age  of  public  crime,  has  an  uneasy  course 
to  steer.  But  Murray  was  brave ;  in  private  life  without  reproach  ; 
sagacious ;  honourable  in  his  tutelage  of  his  ward,  the  little  king ; 
and  he  would  have  made  an  excellent  ruler,  had  he  not  been 
debarred  by  the  accident  of  his  birth.  His  murder,  over  which 
Mary  rejoiced,  pensioning  the  criminal,  was  a  blunder.  Nothing 
but  discredit  was  gained  by  herself  or  her  fickle  false  partisans. 
Their  first  act  was  one  natural  to  the  Border  clans,  and  highly 
injurious  in  its  results  to  IMary's  interest.  The  day  after  the 
murder  of  Murray,  Buccleuch,  Ferniehirst,  and  the  English  exiles 
swept   across   the    Marches  with   2000    horse,  took   a   lar^e  booty. 


MURRAY'S   FUNERAL. 


227 


burned,  and  ravaged.  This,  later,  gave  Elizabeth  an  excuse  to 
invade  Scotland,  and  wreck  the  country  as  far  as  Lanarkshire, 
under  the  pretext  of  punishing  her  rebels  and  their  allies  —  a 
terrible  blow  to  Mary's  cause. "^^  Elizabeth's  obvious  policy  was 
now  the  old  Tudor  policy,  so  well  conducted  by  Dacre,  under 
Henry  VIII.  She  must  keep  Scotland  distracted,  and  to  that  end 
sent  Randolph  to  Edinburgh.  On  the  first  news  of  the  Regent's 
death,  and  before  Randolph  arrived,  the  horror  of  the  cold-blooded 
crime  had  gone  near  to  reconciling  Scottish  parties  in  opposition  to 
the  Hamilton  assassins.  Hunsdon,  from  Berwick,  reported  that 
Kirkcaldy  and  Lethington  were  reconciled  to  Morton  :  the  recon- 
ciliation, as  far  as  Lethington  and  Morton  were  concerned,  was 
mere  appearance.  Between  these  old  allies  was  now  an  inveterate 
hatred.  Morton  was  asking  Elizabeth  to  send  down  Lennox,  who 
could  at  least  be  relied  on  not  to  spare  the  slayers  of  his  son.^o  He 
and  his  impetuous  wife  (afterwards  so  strangely  reconciled  to  Mary) 
were  even  asking  Elizabeth  to  secure  the  person  of  their  grandson, 
the  child  James  VI. ^^ 

On  February  14,  Grange  bore  the  banner  in  front  of  the  funeral 
procession  of  Murray,  whose  body  was  laid  to  rest  where  Argyll 
(Gillespie  Gruamach)  and  the  limbs  of  Montrose  are  lying,  in  St 
Giles's  Church.  Knox  preached  the  sermon :  a  prayer  of  his 
preserves  its  spirit.  Murray  had  no  fault  but  clemency  :  he  had  not 
put  to  death  Mary  and  her  accomplices.  "  Oppose  thy  power,  O 
Lord,  to  the  pride  of  that  cruel  murderess  of  her  own  husband ; 
confound  her  faction  and  their  subtle  enterprises,  of  what  estate  and 
condition  soever  they  be."  ^^  The  Hamiltons  and  Argyll,  mean- 
while, held  a  counter-meeting  at  Glasgow,  and  Drury  advised 
Randolph  to  "  bait  with  a  golden  hook,"  which  he  did  when  he 
arrived  in  Edinburgh,  distributing  bribes.  Buchanan  published  his 
'  Admonition  to  the  True  Lords,'  raking  up  all  that  could  be  said, 
truly  or  falsely,  against  the  Hamiltons,  since  the  time  of  the  ruffian 
Sir  James  Hamilton  of  Finnart.^^  Randolph's  instructions  contained 
a-  hint  that  Elizabeth  wished  to  secure  James's  person,^'*  which 
neither  party  was  likely  to  grant.  The  lords  heard  Lethington, 
who  in  "  ane  perfite  orratione  "  cleared  himself  of  any  share  in 
Murray's  death,  and  was  readmitted  to  the  Council — not,  we  may 
presume,  to  the  pleasure  of  Knox.^^  The  lords  who  had  gathered 
to  Murray's  funeral  withdrew,  being  of  different  minds,  and  fixed  a 
new  convention    for   March    24.     Elizabeth    bade   Randolph  give 


228  RANDOLPH   WORKS   FOR   CIVIL  WAR. 

assurances  that  she  would  never  restore  Mary,  but  no  one  trusted 
Elizabeth. 

On  February  25  the  two  parties  tried  to  reach  an  understanding. 
Argyll  and  Boyd  met  Lethington  and  Morton  at  Dalkeith  "  anent 
the  hame-bringing  of  the  queen."  But  Randolph  heard  of  the 
conclave,  apparently  from  Archibald  Douglas,  Morton's  agent,  one 
of  Darnley's  murderers,  and  hurried  to  Dalkeith.  The  conclave  then 
broke  up  :  Randolph  succeeded  in  making  civil  war  inevitable. ^^ 
He  himself  was  in  high  spirits,  as  always  when  mischief  was  in  hand. 
He  reported  that  Lethington  was  very  ill,  "his  legs  clean  gone," 
and  was  dreading  the  cloud  from  the  south,  "which,  if  it  falleth 
in  this  country,  wrecketh  both  him  and  all  his  family."  The  cloud 
was  Lennox,  who  had  a  blood-feud  with  Lethington,  to  avenge 
Darnley  (March  i).^''  Randolph  was  taunted  with  the  approach  of 
aid  from  T'fance  :  the  despatches  of  La  Mothe-Eenelon  prove  that 
this  was  corrtemplated.  But  it  was  the  old  story  of  Stuart  hopes 
from  France.  Still,  the  hopejs,  and  the  arrival  of-'Vefac  from 
Charles  IX.,  had  theit -effect.  By  March  17  the  two  factions  of 
lords  at  Edinburgh  broke  up  :  the  queen's  men  used  to  meet  at 
"  the  school,"  Lethington's  rooms ;  the  king's  men  at  Morton's 
house.  Elizabeth  announced  (March  18)  that  Sussex  was  about  to 
invade  Scotland,  to  punish  Buccleuch  and  Ferniehirst  and  the 
abettors  of  her  rebels.  Her  promises  on  one  hand,  those  of  France 
on  the  other,  helped  the  intrigues  of  Randolph.  Both  parties  went 
to  muster  their  forces :  the  queen's  lords  decided  to  meet  at 
Linlithgow  iru^ApdJ.-  Lethington  (March  29)  warned  Leicester 
that  Elizabeth's  action  would  drive  his  party  into  the  arms  of 
France.  On  April  5  Randolph  withdrew  to  Berwick  "for  safety"  : 
he  had  succeeded ;  Scotland  was  in  two  hostile  camps,  and  the 
great  devastations  by  Sussex,  with  the  horrors  of  "  the  Douglas  wars," 
were  soon  to  begin. 

By  mid-April  Sussex  was  about  to  devastate  the  land,  and  a  re- 
monstrance from  Mary's  party  in  Edinburgh  was  of  no  avail. 
Lennox  offered  his  services  to  Elizabeth :  they  were  presently 
accepted.  By  April  2 1  Sussex  was  destroying  Branxholme,  or  so 
much  of  it  as  Buccleuch  had  left  unburned.  These  ferocities — he 
laid  all  the  Border  waste — appear  to  have  determined  Kirkcaldy : 
he  set  Lord  Herries  free,  and  now,  as  Sussex  writes,  became 
"vehemently  suspected  of  his  fellows,"  the  king's  party,  with  whom 
he  had  not  yet  absolutely  broken. ^^     Elizabeth  could  not  make  up 


"  THE   DOUGLAS  WARS."  229 

her  mind  to  acknowledge  James  VL  as  King  of  Scotland,  and  the 
ravages  of  Sussex,  with  Elizabeth's  fickleness,  were  deemed  not  un- 
likely to  unite  the  Scots.  Morton  now  intended  to  have  advanced 
from  Dalkeith  to  Edinburgh  in  James's  name,  and  as  the  ally  of 
Sussex.  But  he  was  deterred  by  a  threat  from  Kirkcaldy,  who  in 
the  end  of  April  "was  clean  revolted"  from  James's  party,  "with- 
out any  further  hope."  ^^  This  was  a  great  accession  to  Mary's 
side,  for  Kirkcaldy  was  highly  esteemed  as  a  commander  :  he  had 
previously  been  Mary's  inveterate  opponent,  and  he  was  more  res- 
pected for  honesty  than  perhaps  he  deserved.  Morton  declared 
that  Mary  bought  him  by  the  gift  of  the  revenues  of  St  Andrews, 
vacant  by  the  death  of  Murray, — "  a  device  of  Lethington,  {or  Judas 
non  dormif."  ^°  Kirkcaldy  denied  the  report  to  Randolph,  who  had 
bantered  him  on  being  a  prior.     He  still  professed  loyalty  to  James. 

Meanwhile  Scrope  harried  Herries's  western  estates.  Home  Castle 
was  taken,  and  by  April  27  Lennox  was  at  Berwick  with  forces  to 
wreak  his  feudal  vengeance  on  the  Hamiltons. 

Elizabeth  (April  30)  began  to  fear  the  intervention  of  France  and 
Spain,  and  told  Sussex  to  comfort  and  encourage  her  party  in  Scot- 
land. But  not  even  now  would  she  promise  to  Morton  that  she 
would  acknowledge  the  child  king.^^  The  laird  of  Drumquhassel 
was  sent  to  Sussex  to  urge  firmer  resolutions  on  Elizabeth.  The 
Lennox  MSS.  also  prove  that  he  had  a  private  mission.  He  was  to 
endeavour  to  obtain  the  signature  of  Lethington  to  the  band  for 
Darnley's  murder,  which  Mary  was  knov/n  or  believed  to  possess. 

On  May  14  "the  cloud  from  the  south"  appeared:  Lennox  rode 
from  Berwick  to  Edinburgh  with  1600  Englishmen,  led  by  Drury. 
They  marched  to  Glasgow  and  parleyed  with  Dumbarton  Castle. 
Meanwhile  Lethington,  as  Sussex  heard,  was  threatening  to  make 
Elizabeth  "  sit  up," — "  sytt  on  her  tayle  and  whyne."  He  believed 
in  French  intervention.  He  also  denied  to  Leicester  that  he  had 
spoken  unseemly  words,  and  affirmed  that  the  strength  of  the  nobles 
was  united  to  aid  Mary  (May  17).  But  Lennox  and  his  English 
drove  Chatelherault  from  the  Castle  of  Glasgow,  where  Mary  had 
nursed  Darnley,  and  now  Lennox  proposed  to  take  Dumbarton.  He 
devastated  the  whole  Hamilton  country,  and  sacked  and  burned 
Hamilton  Palace  and  Kinneil.  The  lands  of  Fleming  and  Living- 
stone, Mary's  personal  friends,  were  also  destroyed,  Lennox  suspect- 
ing Livingstone  of  a  share  in  the  murder  of  Darnley.  Dumbarton, 
however,  was  not  tabe  sieged.      On  May  21  La  Mothe  Fenelon,  in 


230  SUSSEX   AND   LETHINGTON. 

his  king's  name,  bade  Elizabeth  withdraw  her  troops  from  Scotland. ^^ 
She  wrote  to  Sussex  next  day,  telling  him  to  leave  Dumbarton  alone, 
and  Drury  retired  to  Berwick.  By  the  last  of  May,  Elizabeth,  in  fear 
of  France,  again  desired  to  arrange  some  compromise  in  Mary's  in- 
terest. In  a  week  she  had  begun  to  change  her  mind.  Morton 
dealt  with  her  (June  1 6)  for  the  appointment  of  Lennox  as  Regent, 
adding  a  hint  that,  if  Elizabeth  again  failed  his  party,  they  would 
turn  to  Mary  or  to  France.''^  Meanwhile  they  appointed  Lennox 
Lieutenant  of  the  Kingdom  (June  28):  Elizabeth  had  replied  that 
she  could  not  nominate  a  regent,  but  would  welcome  the  election  of 
Lennox.  On  July  1 7  Lennox  was  appointed  Regent,  and  this  meant 
war  to  the  knife.  He  was  the  implacable  feudal  foe  of  the  Hamiltons, 
and  pined  to  avenge  Darnley  on  Lethington. 

A  correspondence,  to  which  we  have  already  alluded,  now 
passed  between  Randolph  and  Kirkcaldy  and  Lethington.  Ran- 
dolph plainly  told  the  chiefs  in  the  castle  that  they  had  been 
the  cause  of  all  Mary's  misfortunes,  as  she  herself  averred.  They 
had  taken  her  at  Carberry,  caused  her  imprisonment  and  abdica- 
tion, and  counselled  her  execution.  Something  more  and  worse 
they  had  done  against  her,  which  Randolph,  as  we  have  already 
seen,   hinted  at  darkly "^^  (p.  222   supra). 

He  may  mean  the  handling  or  mishandling  of  the  casket  letters. 
And  why,  he  asked,  were  they  now  Mary's  chief  supporters  ?  Pro- 
bably Randolph  knew  the  reason  :  Lethington  was  in  Mary's  power. 
To  anticipate  events,  Sussex  on  July  29  addressed  Lethington  in  a 
similar  strain.  Lethington  at  York  had  privately  accused  Mary  of 
murder,  had  privately  shown  her  letters  to  Sussex  himself.  "  I  would 
be  glad  to  admit  your  excuse  that  you  were  not  of  the  number  that 
sought  rigour  to  your  queen,  although  you  were  with  the  number, 
if  I  could  do  it  with  a  safe  conscience.  But  I  will  say,  it  is  not  mine 
to  accuse,  and  therefore  I  will  not  enter  into  these  particularities." 
Lethington,  we  remember,  used  the  casket  letters,  unofficially,  to 
force  on  a  compromise.  He  resisted  their  public  disclosure,  as  then 
his  bolt  was  shot,  while  Mary  still  could  discharge  her  own  against 
him.  But,  Sussex  added,  had  Mary's  accusers,  of  whom  Lethington 
was  one,  obtained  their  desire  from  Elizabeth,  "  there  had  been 
worse  done  to  your  queen  than  either  her  majesty  or  any  subject  of 
England  that  I  know  .  .  .  could  be  induced  to  think  meet  to  be 
done."  To  do  the  worst  to  Mary,  at  the  time  to  which  Sussex 
refers,  would  have  suited  Lethington  well.     When  the  worst  was  not 


THE   MYSTERY   OF   LETHINGTON.  23 1 

done,  when  there  was  a  chance  of  Mary's  restoration,  Lethington 
was  compelled  to  keep  her  on  the  safe  side.*^^  He  made  no  reply 
to  this  part  of  the  letter  of  Sussex,  beyond  denying  his  consent  to 
the  scheme  for  killing  Mary  :  the  reasons  for  his  final  change  of 
sides  he  could  not  reveal.  Indeed  they  have  puzzled  historians. 
"How  had  Maitland  become  so  changed?"  Mr  Froude  asks,  and 
supposes  that  he  reckoned,  as  he  certainly  and  confessedly  did,  that 
Elizabeth  would  at  last  let  Mary  go  free.  Mary  and  he  could  then 
complete  his  national  ambition,  and  the  two  crowns  would  be  united 
on  the  head  of  herself  and  of  her  son.  But  what  Lethington,  as  he 
told  Morton  later,  desired  was  to  escape  '■'■  particular  evil  will"  from 
Mary,  if  ever  she  was  restored.  He  knew  what  he  had  deserved  : 
"  more  particular  evil  will  than  he  had  already  at  her  hands,"  as 
Morton  replied,  he  could  in  nowise  merit.  For  this  reason,  because 
she  "  had  in  black  and  white  that  which  would  cause  Lethington  to 
be  hanged  by  the  neck,"  he  was  compelled  to  propitiate  her,  and  at 
last,  Nau  says,  obtained  "  assurances "  from  her.  This  was  the 
motive,  this  and  not  the  influence  of  his  fair  wife,  or  hatred  of 
Knox,  which  bound  Lethington  to  the  only  cause  which  he  could 
not  desert. 

While  the  Sussex-Lethington  correspondence  passed,  the  queen's 
lords  intended  to  meet  at  Linlithgow ;  but  Huntly  was  checked  by 
Lennox  and  Morton,  who  took  his  castle  at  Brechin,  and  shocked 
Sussex,  a  man  of  honour,  by  hanging  many  of  the  garrison.  Any 
spark  of  the  old  national  sentiment  that  still  smouldered  in  Scotland 
was  now  apt  to  be  revived.  Huntly  had  denounced  the  new  Regent, 
Lennox,  as  an  English  subject.  Lennox  had  denied  the  imputation, 
but  it  was  accurate.  On  September  23  Elizabeth  licensed  Lennox 
to  remain  in  Scotland  till  she  should  send  for  him  !  ^^ 

There  could  be  no  peace  under  an  English  Regent  of  Scotland, 
but  affairs  dragged  on  indecisively.  Politicians  picked  idly  at  the 
Gordian  knot.  Elizabeth  was  dallying  with  the  idea  of  restoring 
Mary,  and  securing,  by  way  of  exchange,  the  principal  Scottish 
castles.  Lethington  was  ready  to  concede  almost  anything  ;  the 
one  object  was  to  secure  Mary's  freedom,  but  he  told  Lesley  that 
Elizabeth  would  never  let  her  cousin  go.  Mary,  in  fact,  had  too 
many  friends.  She  had  hopes  from  France,  hopes  from  Spain, 
hopes  from  Catholic  England,  and  as  her  intrigues  with  these 
Powers  were  always  discovered,  and  always  infuriated  Elizabeth, 
Mary's  chances  from  her  weariness,  or  awakened  conscience,  were 


232  THE   TREATY   OF   CHATSWORTH. 

dashed  again  and  again.  Norfolk,  indeed,  was  now  set  at  liberty, 
but  this  only  added  another  to  the  clashing  strings  on  Mary's  bow. 
Her  friend,  Herries,  was  so  punished  by  a  new  invasion  under 
Sussex  that  he  seems  to  have  lost  heart.  In  mid-September  a 
truce  was  settled  between  the  king's  lords  and  Mary's  party.*''^  On 
September  19  Elizabeth  sent  Cecil  to  deal  with  Mary,  then  at 
Chatsworth :  we  have,  unluckily,  no  personal  details  about  the 
strange  interview.  Elizabeth  intended  to  bring  Mary  to  accept  her 
conditions  by  a  threat  of  publishing  the  casket  letters,  but  this  was 
delayed.  Lethington  had  bidden  Mary  and  Lesley  "  yield  in  every- 
thing." He  would  even  give  up  Dumbarton  and  the  little  prince. 
These  letters  of  August  1 7  were  intercepted  by  Lennox  and  sent  to 
Cecil,  with  an  enamelled  jewel,  representing  the  triumph  of  the 
Scottish  lion.^^  Mary  negotiated  with  Cecil,  while  Sussex  was 
protesting,  as  a  man  of  honour,  against  Lennox's  attempt  to  forfeit 
Lethington  during  the  truce  (October  8).^^  Mary,  maliciously, 
where  Cecil  had  put  forward  a  clause  as  to  EHzabeth's  possible 
"  issue,"  inserted  "  lawful  issue."  She  entirely  declined  to  deliver 
up  Elizabeth's  rebels  who  sought  sanctuary  in  Scotland.  She  refused 
to  pursue  Bothwell  except  "  according  to  the  laws  of  the  realm," 
by  which  Bothwell  had  already  been  acquitted.  Under  conditions 
she  would  send  her  child  into  England.  She  "  desired  most 
instantly  "  to  see  her  boy.  As  the  negotiations  bore  no  fruit,  it  is 
needless  to  enter  into  other  details. 

Cecil  pretended  to  Lesley  that  he  rather  liked  the  idea  of  the 
Norfolk  marriage  :  this  was  a  mere  ruse  to  encourage  Mary  in  an 
intrigue  which  must  be  fatal. 

The  party  of  Lennox  ought  now  to  have  sent  representatives  to 
England  to  ratify  or  reject  this  informal  treaty  of  Chatsworth.  But 
Morton  "  was  much  appalled."  "''^  Mary,  in  fact,  held  a  sword  over 
the  head  of  Morton  as  well  as  of  Lethington.  Moreover,  the 
queen's  party  were  circulating  an  old  "  band,"  which,  they  said, 
involved  even  Murray,  as  signatory  of  the  contract  for  Darnley's 
murder.  The  band  was  probably  that  of  October  1566,  and  was, 
at  most,  a  union  against  Darnley  in  certain  contingencies,  in  ap- 
pearance a  relatively  constitutional  document.''^  Lennox  (October 
16)  showed  the  alarm  of  his  party  by  imploring  Elizabeth  not  to 
proceed  "with  any  treaty  to  the  advantage  of  the  Queen  of 
Scots." '^2  They  were  "all  so  amazed  and  astonished  that  they 
do  not  know  what  counsel  to  take."     Morton  ingenuously  objected 


KNOX  PREACHES  AGAINST  KIRKCALDY  (DEC.   1570).      233 

to  allowing  two  of  Mary's  party  to  enter  England  as  commissioners, 
as  they  might  happen  to  be  (like  himself)  of  Darnley's  murderers. 
In  Paris  Norris  warned  Cecil  that  if  Mary  returned  home  she  might 
marry  the  Due  d'AnjouJ^  Guereau,  the  Spanish  Ambassador  in 
London,  "knew  for  certain"  that  Anjou  was  about  to  propose  to 
Mary:  the  English  Catholics  preferred  him  to  Norfolk  (October  15)."* 
But  there  had  recently  been  schemes  for  marrying  Anjou,  brother 
of  the  French  king,  to  Elizabeth.'^^  This  plan  smouldered  on, 
though  Anjou  himself,  a  lad  of  seventeen,  cried  out  against  the 
dishonour  of  marrying  a  woman  of  thirty-seven,  whose  character,  as 
he  knew,  had  been  totally  lost  through  her  doings  with  Leicester. 
Anjou  was  still  young  enough  to  have  scruples,  but  they  were 
overcome;  Elizabeth  was  proved  chaste  as  ice,  and  through  1571 
she  coquetted  with  the  boy. 

But  before  this,  in  November,  a  famous  retainer  of  Lennox, 
Thomas  Crawford,  was  mercilessly  despoiling  the  poor  tenants  of 
the  Hamiltons.  The  preacher  Craig,  a  just  and  courageous  man, 
induced  Lennox  to  make  some  amends,  but  Crawford  was  still 
plundering.  On  November  14  Robert  Pitcairn  was  sent  by  Lennox 
to  deal  with  Ehzabeth,  and  William  Livingstone,  with  the  Bishop  of 
Galloway,  followed,  to  act  for  Mary.'^^  Elizabeth  gave  Pitcairn 
scant  satisfaction.  Scotland  rang  with  an  extraordinary  and  in- 
genious murder,  perpetrated  by  a  preacher  on  his  wife  ;  and  on 
December  2 1  there  were  notable  doings  in  Edinburgh.  Retainers 
of  Kirkcaldy  beat  an  enemy  of  his,  and  one  of  them  was  put  in 
prison  :  Kirkcaldy  broke  open  the  Tolbooth  and  rescued  his  client. 
Knox  thundered  against  his  old  friend,  Kirkcaldy,  who  complained 
of  being  called  a  "  murderer "  (which  he  was) ;  Knox  paltered  and 
equivocated,  and  civil  war  was  clearly  at  the  doors  again. '^'' 

Meanwhile  the  arrangement  between  Mary  and  Elizabeth,  the 
treaty  of  Chatsworth,  made  no  progress.  Under  hope  deferred, 
and  the  horror  of  private  news  from  Scotland,  Mary's  health 
became  perilous.  Lennox  had  given  to  little  James,  as  tutor,  his 
own  clansman,  Buchanan,  the  writer  who  had  accused  Mary  not 
only  of  murdering  her  husband  but  of  designing  to  murder  her 
child.  This  infernal  act  had  the  natural  results  :  the  child  was 
reported  to  defame  his  mother ;  to  have  been  taught  parrot-cries 
against  her.'*^  "No  man  believed  any  other  thing  of  her  to  come 
but  death."  ^^  Her  illness  was  in  mid-December  ;  by  February  6 
Mary  was  convalescent.     She  then  wrote  to  Lesley,  and    to  Eliz- 


234  THE   RIDOLPHI    PLOT    {1571). 

abeth,  not  to  wait  for  Lennox's  commissioners.  If  delay  was 
prolonged  she  would  seek  aid  abroad. ^'^  In  truth,  Mary  was  be- 
ginning a  new  plot  for  her  release.  This  time  the  string  to  her 
bow  was  an  Italian  banker,  Ridolphi,  settled  in  London,  an  agent 
between  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  and  Spain.  Marj^  knew  of  the 
Anjou- Elizabeth  marriage  project,  which  was  nothing  to  her  ad- 
vantage. France  was  pretending  to  favour  Mary's  marriage  with 
Norfolk.  On  the  whole,  Mary  now  leant  most  towards  Spain, 
whither  she  wished  to  fly.  Meanwhile  she  desired  Ridolphi  to  go 
to  Spain  in  her  interests,  and  to  assure  Spain  and  the  Pope  that 
they  might  rely  on  Norfolk.^^  If  we  may  believe  a  Buchanan 
(Thomas)  who  wrote  to  Cecil  from  Copenhagen,  Mary  kept  up 
her  correspondence  with  Bothwell.^^  Far  too  many  strings  had 
Mary  to  her  bow,   far  too  many  irons  in  the  fire. 

But  it  does  not  seem  that  Anjou  was  one  of  the  strings,  or 
that  Mary  wished  to  marry  her  husband's  brother,  aged  seventeen. 
Mr  Froude,  indeed,  writes,  "  Suddenly,  with  overwhelming  sur- 
prise, she  learned  that  her  false  lover "  (Anjou)  "  was  going  over 
to  the  English  queen."  But  Mr  Froude  is  "  confounding  the 
persons,"  as  he  not  infrequently  does,  never  to  Mary's  advantage. 
It  was  Elizabeth  who  felt  "  overwhelming  surprise,"  and  was 
"stung  to  fury,"  on  learning  from  Walsingham,  who  invented  the 
story  as  a  ruse,  that  her  "  faithless  lover  was  going  over  to  the 
Scottish  queen."  ^^ 

Among  these  embroilments  Morton  came  to  England,  at  the 
end  of  February,  with  his  palladium,  the  silver  casket,  to  nego- 
tiate against  the  Chatsworth  treaty.  Elizabeth  appointed  com- 
missioners. Fenelon  tried  to  bring  Morton  round  to  Mary's  side  : 
he  failed,  but  found  the  Earl  desperately  afraid  of  Mary's  restor- 
ation. He  entirely  refused  Elizabeth's  terms  :  he  held  by  Mary's 
abdication  at  Lochleven  (a  point  distasteful  to  Elizabeth  as  a 
queen),  and  she  answered  angrily  that  Morton  had  been  prompted 
by  some  of  her  own  Council,  probably  Bacon  and  Cecil,  who 
deserved  to  be  hanged.'*'*  Morton  returned  to  Scotland  :  the 
treaty  of  Chatsworth  was  a  mere  futility,  and  it  was  time  for 
Mary  to  try  her  chance  with  Spain,  by  help  of  Norfolk  and 
Ridolphi.  In  Scotland  Kirkcaldy  was  fortifying  the  castle  and 
enlisting  troops,  civil  war  raged  round  Paisley,  and  a  heavy  loss 
was  about  to  fall  on  Mary's  party.  Meanwhile  Mary  sent  Rid- 
olphi to  Spain  and  the  Pope,  pleading  the  hardship  of  her  case, 


MARY   LOSES   DUMBARTON.  235 

and  what  she  might  do,  if  restored,  for  the  Church,  with  the  aid 
of  Norfolk  and  the  English  Catholics.*^^  The  Pope  had  been 
painfully  shocked  by  her  Protestant  marriage  with  Bothwell.  She 
therefore  threw  Bothwell  over,  described  her  marriage  with  him 
as  forced  upon  her,  and  asked  the  Pope  to  release  her  from  the 
hated  tie.^^  If  Buchanan  (Thomas)  happened  to  tell  the  truth, 
if  Mary  had  just  been  dealing  with  Bothwell,  she  certainly  now 
carried  opportunism  very  far,  especially  as  she  was  protesting  her 
entire  obedience  to  Elizabeth  (March  31,  1571).^''  But  deceit  is 
excusable  in  a  woman  placed  where  Mary  was. 

Now,  while  Ridolphi  was  on  his  mission,  a  heavy  blow  fell. 
Dumbarton  Castle,  held  by  Lord  Fleming,  was  the  open  gate  of 
Mary's  friends :  here  they  received  supplies  from  France.  The 
rock  seems  impregnable  to  forces  not  armed  with  modern  artil- 
lery, but  on  April  2  it  was  seized  for  Lennox  by  Thomas  Craw- 
ford and  Cuningham  of  Drumquhassel.  The  place  was  sold  by 
a  traitor  within.  The  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews  was  captured, 
and  on  April  7  was  accused  by  Ruthven  and  George  Buchanan 
of  being  a  party  to  Darnley's  murder,  and  of  other  crimes.  The 
evidence  had  been  known  to  Lennox,  by  hearsay,  as  early  as 
June  II,  1568.  It  was  the  testimony  of  a  priest,  and  based  on 
what  he  had  heard  in  the  confessional  from  one  John  Hamilton. 
The  Archbishop  denied  all  the  charges,  but  on  the  scaffold  is 
said  to  have  admitted  being  art  and  part  in  Murray's  murder. 
He  was  hanged  without  any  recorded  form  of  trial.  ^*  It  is  not 
certam,  nor  in  any  way  proved,  that  the  Archbishop  was  con- 
cerned in  Darnley's  murder.  It  suited  Lennox  to  say  so,  and 
George  Buchanan  was  Lennox's  man.^^  If  we  may  believe 
Buchanan  and  the  '  Diurnal,'  it  is  a  comfort  to  know  that  the 
priest  who  revealed,  or  pretended  to  reveal,  the  secrets  of  the 
confessional,  was  soon  after  hanged  for  celebrating  mass.  Whether 
mere  intolerance  or  a  desire  to  remove  this  worthy  witness  was  the 
motive  for  killing  him,  we  may  guess. 

Undaunted  by  the  loss  of  Dumbarton,  Kirkcaldy  held  Edinburgh 
Castle  for  Mary,  and  formally  renounced  allegiance  to  the  Regent 
Lennox.  He  was  joined  by  the  Hamiltons  and  many  of  Mary's 
friends,  including  Argyll.  On  May  11,  the  Hamiltons  being  in 
Edinburgh,  Knox  made  the  last  of  his  retreats,  finding  asylum  in 
St  Andrews,  where  he  was  not  popular.  The  old  college,  St 
Salvator's,  was  more  or  less  for  the  queen's  party.      St  Leonard's 


236  NEW   ACTORS. 

was,  as  it  had  ever  been,  extremely  Protestant.  The  well  of  St 
Leonard's  was  the  fountainhead  of  the  Scottish  Reformation.  At 
St  Andrews  was  Mr  John  Colville,  second  son  of  Colville  of 
Cleish,  a  natural  branch  of  the  House  of  Easter  Wemyss.  He 
was  a  minister,  but  a  man  of  secular  ambitions.  In  July,  when 
Knox  was  dwelling  in  the  Novum  Hospitium  of  the  Abbey,  John 
Colville  wedded  Janet  Russel.  James  Melville  tells  us  that  a 
play  was  written,  to  grace  the  marriage  festival,  by  one  of  the 
Regents  of  St  Leonard's,  Mr  John  Davidson.  In.  this  drama, 
"according  to  Mr  Knox's  doctrine,  the  Castle  of  Edinburgh  was 
besieged,  and  the  captain"  (Kirkcaldy  of  Grange),  "with  one  or 
two  with  him,  hanged  in  effigy."  ^"^  This  agreeable  interlude 
illustrated  Knox's  prophecy  that  his  old  friend  and  new  enemy, 
Kirkcaldy,  would  come  to  be  hanged  ;  and  hanged  he  was,  that 
the  prophecy  of  Knox  might  be  fulfilled. 

The  play  is  mentioned  because  this  occasion  introduces  us  to 
two  persons  of  singular  fortunes,  the  bridegroom,  John  Colville,  and 
the  author  of  the  play,  John  Davidson.  Colville,  abandoning  his 
ministerial  duties,  became  a  politician  and  diplomatist.  We  shall 
find  him  engaged  in  important  missions  to  England  for  the  king, 
working  with  the  Presbyterian  party  among  the  nobles,  an  associate 
of  the  Earl  of  Gowrie  (Ruthven),  and  on  his  fall  an  adventurous 
partisan  of  the  wild  free-lance,  Francis  Stewart,  Earl  of  Bothwell. 
When  Bothwell's  cause  grew  desperate,  he  is  reconciled  to  James, 
loses  his  favour,  continues  to  be  a  spy  of  Cecil  and  Essex,  aban- 
doned by  them,  lives  miserably  abroad,  still  acting  as  a  double  spy, 
still  -conspiring,  reconciles  himself  to  the  Catholic  Church,  takes 
alms  from  the  Pope,  and  dies  a  wretched  heart-broken  outcast  early 
in  the  seventeenth  century.  John  Davidson,  the  author  of  the  play, 
on  the  other  hand,  becomes  the  satirist,  in  verse,  of  the  unfriends 
of  the  Kirk,  beginning  with  Morton,  is  the  irreconcilable  leader  of 
the  extreme  left  of  the  Kirk  party,  is  a  voice  crying  in  the  desert 
when  King  James  overcomes  the  preachers,  and,  as  minister  of 
Liberton,   has  personal  wrangles  with  the  encroaching  king. 

Having  introduced  these  new  persons  in  the  drama,  we  return 
to  the  siege  of  Edinburgh  Castle.  Lennox  with  his  party  lay  at 
Leith,  but  held  within  the  bounds  of  Edinburgh  a  Parliament 
in  which  they  forfeited  Lethington  and  others  of  their  foes. 
Kirkcaldy  fired  on  them  from  the  castle,  and  held  a  Parliament 
in   Mary's  interests.^^     The  Kirk  showed  her  political  tendencies. 


MURDER   OF   LENNOX.  237 

Craig  and  other  ministers  visited  Kirkcaldy  and  Lethington  in 
the  hope  of  proving  peacemakers.*^^  Nothing  was  to  be  got  from 
Lethington.  Neither  he  nor  any  one,  he  told  the  clergy,  had 
originally  dreamed  of  discrowning  Mary,  or  crowning  James.  "  For 
my  own  part,  plainly  I  confess  that  I  did  very  evil  and  ungodly." 
Mary's  rebels  in  1567  had  found  themselves  in  a  quandary;  "the 
setting  up  of  the  king's  authority  was  but  a  shift  or  fetch  to  save 
us  from  great  inconveniences."  Craig  apparently  told  Lethington 
that  God  had  only  used  him  and  his  fetches  as  an  instrument, 
"Are  you  of  the  Deity's  Privy  Council?"  asked  Lethington.  He 
had  never  believed  in  the  pretensions  of  the  preachers ;  now  he 
spoke  out. 

Elizabeth  now  sent  Drury  as  an  envoy  to  both  factions,  but 
chiefly  to  encourage  Lennox,  who  with  his  party  was  occupying 
Stirling.  He  was  hated  by  his  own  side  as  "  an  Englishman,  cruel 
and  extreme  where  he  has  the  upper  hand,  nothing  liberal ; 
suspicious,  and  nothing  affable,"  says  Drury.^^  Lennox's  days 
were  numbered.  He  asked  Elizabeth  for  artillery,  men,  and  money 
to  reduce  the  castle.  This  Elizabeth  could  have  done  at  any 
moment :  she  dallied  for  two  years  longer,  and  we  may  hasten  over 
a  wretched  period  of  civil  war.  Lethington  told  Elizabeth  that 
when  James  came  of  age  he  would  find  "a  confused  chaos,  and  the 
country  divided  into  two  or  three  hundred  petty  kingdoms,  like 
Shan  O'Neil's  in  Ireland."^*  Elizabeth  returned  to  her  old  proposal 
of  a  truce,  and  consideration  of  the  treaty  of  Chatsworth  (June  7). 
Now,  in  answer  to  Kirkcaldy's  queen's  Parliament,  Lennox  held 
another  at  Stirling,  that  of  which  little  James,  pointing  to  a  flaw  in 
the  roof,  said,  "There  is  a  hole  in  this  Parliament"  (August  20). 
Argyll,  who  had  long  been  wavering,  now  deserted  Mary  and  made 
terms  with  Lennox  (August  13).  Cassilis,  Eglintoun,  and  Boyd 
also  turned  their  coats.  Morton,  who  had  wavered  on  the  other 
side,  received  a  bribe  from  Elizabeth,  and  was  on  better  terms  with 
Lennox.  He  "turned  over  the  leaf"  not  a  day  too  soon.  On 
September  4  Kirkcaldy,  on  information  from  Archibald  Douglas, 
sent  Buccleuch,  Ferniehirst,  and  Huntly  with  a  force  of  Border 
mosstroopers,  who  surprised  Stirling,  and  seized  all  the  nobles 
before  dawn.  But  Morton  held  out  bravely  in  his  house,  and 
caused  such  delay  that  the  soldiers  of  Stirling  Castle  and  the 
burgesses  came  on  the  scene,  rescued  the  prisoners,  and  drove  out 
the  mosstroopers,  who,  of  course,  were  busy  plundering.     Lennox 


238  MORTON   AND   ARCHIBALD   DOUGLAS. 

was  shot  when  a  rescue  seemed  inevitable,  despite  the  chivalrous 
attempts  of  Spens  of  Wormiston,  his  captor,  who  was  slain  in 
defending  him.  Calder,  who  fired  the  shot,  confessed  that  Lord 
Claude  Hamilton  had  bidden  him  avenge  the  Archbishop,  but  this 
was  said  under  torture.^'^ 

Few  tears  were  shed  for  Lennox,  a  mean-souled  man  in  all  his 
conduct  from  the  first.  He  had  begun  by  betraying  the  party  of 
Mary  of  Guise,  and  stealing  money  which  France  had  sent  to  Scot- 
land. In  the  Riccio  affair  he  and  Darnley  had  aimed  at  Mary's 
crown,  and,  as  Randolph  heard,  at  her  life.  His  one  desire  was  to 
put  the  Lennox  Stewarts  in  the  place  of  the  Hamiltons.  His 
religion  depended  on  circumstances.  He,  a  Regent  of  Scotland, 
was  a  subject  of  England.  "The  sillie  Regent  was  slane,"  says 
Bannatyne,  and  the  king's  lords  elected  Mar,  who,  as  commander  of 
Edinburgh  and  Stirling  Castles,  had  played  an  honest  part. 

The  murder  of  Lennox  was,  as  usual,  a  blunder,  and,  for  Mary's 
party,  a  misfortune. 

The  late  Regent  had  become  a  source  o<  weakness  to  his  own 
faction.  In  the  Parliament  of  Stirling  he  seems  to  have  been  willing, 
but  unable,  to  conciliate  the  preachers.  The  overbearing  ISIorton 
was  already  treating  them  as  impertinent  knaves^  merely  because  they 
demanded  that  provision  which  was  their  legal  right.  He  and  his 
fellows  were  reintroducing  the  odious  names  of  bishops,  deans, 
chapters,  abbots,  and  so  forth.  Morton  had  even  secured  the  par- 
sonage of  Glasgow  for  his  kinsman,  Archibald  Douglas,  of  the  House 
of  Whittingham,  a  man  notorious  for  his  share  not  only  in  the  Riccio 
but  in  the  Darnley  murder,  and  for  treachery  to  Morton,  to  Mary, 
to  all  who  trusted  him.  This  wretch  made  a  mockery  of  the  ex- 
amination for  the  place  of  a  minister,  owned  that  he  "  was  not  used 
to  pray,"  declined  to  adventure  himself  in  the  Greek  Testament,  and, 
instead  of  preaching,  read  portions  of  the  Bible.  The  Kirk  tried  to 
dismiss  him,  but  the  Privy  Council  supported  him  against  the  Kirk.^^ 
He  was  also,  though  a  murderer,  forger,  and  traitor,  a  judge,  or  Lord 
of  Session,  thanks  to  Morton,  whose  spadassiti  he  was.  Such  pro- 
ceedings caused  many  of  the  barons,  or  lairds,  to  separate  from  the 
king's  lords ;  and  they  were  soon  to  be  more  severely  tried  by  the 
appointment  of  another  Douglas,  John,  a  pluralist,  to  the  nominal 
archbishopric  of  St  Andrews.  Not  being  made  an  archbishop 
(which  was  probably  his  ambition),  Archibald  Douglas  now  began 
to  betray  Morton.     The  new  simoniacal  arrangements  recalled  the 


FAILURE   OF   RIDOLPHl'S   PLOT.  239 

worst  features  of  corruption  in  the  ancient  Church.  The  tend- 
ency of  things  was  in  favour  of  the  more  austere  and  sincere 
adversaries  of  Mary,  the  lairds,  burgesses,  and  preachers,  but 
for  the  moment  they  were  alienated  from  Morton,  and  even 
from  ^Mar.^^  The  Kirk  was  pressing  its  claims  to  do  justice  on 
homicide,  adultery,  witchcraft,  and  incest,*" with  which  the  land 
was  replenished,"  and  preachers,  as  usual,  made  the  pulpit  the 
source  of  political  harangues.  But  in  the  din  of  civil  war  the 
Kirk  received  comparatively  slight  attention. 

Worse  than  the  death  of  Lennox,  for  the  queen's  party,  was  the 
discovery  of  Mary's  and  Norfolk's  intrigue,  through  Ridolphi,  with 
the  Pope,  Alva,  and  Spain.  This  plot  was  the  result  of  Mary's 
despair  of  the  treaty  of  Chatsworth.  It  had  promising  elements  : 
Spanish  forces  from  the  Netherlands,  money  from  the  Pope,  a  rising 
ot  Catholic  nobles,  would  perhaps  not  only  liberate  Mary,  but  set 
her  on  the  throne  of  England.  But  in  April,  Lesley's  messenger, 
Charles  Bailey,  had  been  arrested  at  Dover,  ciphers  had  been  seized, 
the  legerdemain  of  Lesley,  in  substituting  one  packet  for  another, 
had  failed  :  the  rack  and  a  7nouton,  or  prison  spy,  named  Herle,  had 
extracted  much  of  the  truth  from  Bailey.  On  May  13  Lesley  was 
examined  by  Cecil  (now  Burghley,  but  the  old  name  may  be  re- 
tained), Sussex,  and  others,  "to  whom  I  answered  as  seemed  most 
reasonable  and  convenient  to  me."  Lesley  was  handed  over  to  the 
custody  of  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  with  whom  he  hunted.  Greek  and 
Hebrew  he  studied  under  Ninian  Winzet,  the  honest  adversary  of 
Knox,  a  man  not  compromised,  as  far  as  we  know,  in  these  trans- 
actions. But  in  October,  when  Cecil  began  to  rack  the  secretaries 
and  servants  of  Norfolk,  the  truth  came  out.  On  October  16 
Lesley  was  removed  to  the  Tower.  Legists  were  found  to  assure 
Cecil  that  Lesley,  though  Mary's  ambassador,  was  subject  to  English 
law.  De  Guereau,  the  Spanish  ambassador,  was  merely  sent  home, 
as  Randolph  had  been  by  Mary,  in  1566.  But  Lesley,  threatened 
with  the  rack,  revealed  not  only  the  truth,  but  perhaps  more  than 
the  truth,  as  to  the  intrigues  at  York  in  October  1568.  His  "  anguish 
of  mind,"  and  casuistical  attempts  at  self-defence,  are  clearly  to  be 
read  in  his  letters  to  Cecil.  Between  Lesley  and  the  earlier  revela- 
tions of  Murray,  Norfolk  was  betrayed  ;  his  trial  and  execution  were 
postponed.  But  Mary  was  strictly  secluded  ;  her  correspondence  for 
some  time  is  a  blank. ^^ 

Thus  the  great  affair,  which  seems  to  have  involved  the  assassina- 


240  MAR   REGENT.      SIEGE    OF   THE   CASTLE. 

tion  of  Elizabeth,  was  overthrown,  while  the  Anjou  marriage  and  the 
league  of  England  with  France  were  still  being  negotiated.  Cecil 
now  arranged  to  damn  Mary's  reputation  by  the  publication  of 
Buchanan's  *  Detection,'  with  the  casket  papers.  To  the  English 
edition  was  added  an  Oration,  probably  by  Dr  Thomas  Wilson, 
who  had  examined  Lesley,  and  learned  from  him  that  Mary  had 
poisoned  Francis  II.,  murdered  Darnley,  taken  Bothwell  to  Car- 
berry  that  he  might  perish  there,  and  so  forth.  "  Lord,  what  a 
people  are  these,  what  a  queen,  and  what  an  ambassador ! "  cries 
Wilson. ^^  That  Lesley  was  wont  to  speak  very  ill  of  Mary  in 
private  we  learn  from  Lethington's  son  in  his  MS.   of  1616. 

Charles  IX.,  through  La  Mothe  Fenelon,  vainly  protested  against 
the  publication  of  the  '  Detection.'  Fenelon  thought  the  sonnets  the 
worst  things  in  the  book.  The  tone  of  Charles  and  his  ambassador 
by  no  means  implies  that  they  thought  the  casket  papers  forged  or 
contaminated. ^"^ 

In  Scotland,  meanwhile,  the  castle  was  besieged  in  a  desultory 
way,  and  the  people  of  Edinburgh  were  distressed,  or  driven  out. 
In  the  North,  Adam  Gordon,  commanding  for  Huntly,  defeated 
the  Forbeses,  and,  himself  or  by  an  agent,  burned  the  House  of 
Towey,  famous  in  the  ballad  "  Edom  o'  Gordon,"  Hunsdon 
negotiated  with  Lethington  and  Kirkcaldy  for  a  peace,  but  their 
terms  were  too  high,  and  their  tone  arrogant.  Mar  wished  an  end 
of  the  troubles  ;  "but  Morton,"  says  Drury,  "who  rules  all,  unless 
he  and  his  friends  might  still  enjoy  all  they  have  gotten  of  the 
other  party"  (the  forfeited  lands  of  the  Hamiltons,  Lethington, 
Kirkcaldy,  and  the  rest),  "allows  not  thereof"  (October  29).^°^ 

There  were  two  insuperable  causes  of  strife  :  Morton's  avarice, 
and  Lethington's  certainty  that  peace  meant  his  own  execution 
for  Darnley's  murder.  "  Being  already  forfeited,"  writes  Hunsdon 
to  Cecil,  "Lethington  knows  that  there  will  be  no  pardon,  but 
that  that"  {Darnley's  murder)  "will  be  excepted,  and  so  he  can  have 
no  surety,  and  therefore  causes  all  these  troubles"  (November  25). 
For  nearly  a  year  this  deadlock  continued.  Drury  and  du  Croc, 
once  more  sent  over  by  France,  negotiated  between  the  Castilians 
and  the  king's  party  throughout  the  summer  of  1572.  But  there 
could  be  no  advance.  Morton  and  his  hungry  allies  would  not 
resign  the  forfeited  lands  of  their  opponents.  The  Castilians  would 
not  make  peace  till  their  lands  and  lives  were  assured,  and  an 
amnesty  passed.     Lethington   especially  saw  that   to  acknowledge 


TULCHAN    BISHOPS   (1572).  241 

"  the  king's  authority "  meant  death  to  himself  and  ruin  to  his 
adherents.  The  country,  he  said,  was  divided  into  factions  :  there 
could  be  no  peace  or  safety  if,  on  surrendering  the  castle,  one  of 
these  factions,  "  the  king's,"  was  to  govern  all.  He  therefore  pro- 
posed various  kinds  of  coalitions,  or  Governments  of  all  the  Talents, 
by  a  commission  chosen  from  both  parties.  But  he  was  told  that 
he  aimed  "at  an  aristocracy,  or  rather  an  oligarchy,"  as  if  Scotland, 
during  a  minority,  had  ever  been  ruled  by  any  other  means. 

While  time  was  thus  passed,  the  king's  party  could  scarcely  pay 
their  troops,  Elizabeth  providing  a  poor  thousand  pounds.  The 
result  was  renewed  inroads  by  Morton  and  Mar  on  the  stipends  of 
the  preachers.  Mar  actually  ventured  to  inform  them  that  "the 
policie  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  is  not  perfite."  Now  the  policie 
of  the  Kirk  was  a  sacred  thing,  beyond  the  range  of  discussion. ^^^ 
Morton  caused  the  ministers  to  elect,  or  rather  accept,  John 
Douglas  as  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews  in  February  1572,  to  the 
vexation  of  Knox.^*^^  It  was  plain  that  there  would  be  collisions 
between  the  authority  of  the  prelates  and  the  superintendents.  It 
became  one  of  the  chief  duties  and  pleasures  of  the  Kirk  to  make 
the  archbishops'  lives  a  burden  to  them  :  the  true  origin  of  these 
brawls  was  partly  Morton's  avarice,  but  more,  perhaps,  the  im- 
perative need  of  money  for  the  king's  party,  who  therefore  set  up 
tulchan  bishops,  so  called  from  the  mock  calf  or  tulchan  used  to 
make  cows  yield  milk.  These  bishops,  without  consecration  or 
episcopal  functions,  merely  drew  the  Church  revenues  and  handed 
them  in,  minus  their  commission,  to  Morton. 

For  money  the  Castilians  depended  on  Mary's  dowry  in  France, 
and  on  such  French  or  Spanish  supplies  as  Lord  Seton  could  get 
from  Alva,  or  James  Kirkcaldy  from  France.  Seton  was  driven  to 
land  at  Harwich,  and  went  through  England  disguised  as  a  beggar. 
He  received  an  alms  of  two  shillings  from  Sir  Ralph  Sadleyr,  who, 
of  course,  did  not  recognise  him.  His  ciphered  papers,  however, 
fell  into  Cecil's  hands.  Much  of  the  money  was  apt  to  be  appro- 
priated en  route,  as  by  Archibald  Douglas,  minister  and  Lord  of 
Session,  who  was  at  once  acting  as  a  spy  for  Drury,  as  Morton's 
man,  as  an  agent  for  the  Castilians,  and,  it  was  said,  as  manager 
of  a  plot  to  assassinate  Morton.  This  combination  of  industries 
being  discovered,  Archibald  was  imprisoned  by  Morton  in  Loch- 
leven  Castle.  Later,  he  was  warded  in  Stirling,  and  (Nov.  25, 
1572)    was  to   be   tried,    but    he    knew   too    much,   and   was    re- 

VOL.    II.  Q 


242  INTRIGUE    TO    HAND   OVER    MARY   (1572). 

leased. ^*^*  We  have,  in  MS.,  an  astonishing  list  of  charges  against 
him.  Lochleven  now  yielded  up  the  fugitive  Northumberland, 
whom  William  Douglas  sold  to  Lord  Hunsdon  for  ;^2ooo  in  gold; 
though  even  Morton  was  outraged  by  the  infamous  treachery — 
"  was  utterly  against  it,"  writes  Lord  Hunsdon.  Lochleven  had 
previously  bargained  with  Lady  Northumberland  for  the  same 
sum.  Northumberland  was  decapitated,  and  part  of  the  ^2000 
went  to  pay  the  troops  of  the  king's  party.^^^ 

By  mid-April  the  Castilians  lost  the  support  of  Argyll,  Cassilis, 
Eglinton,  Crawford,  and  Herries.  A  war  of  skirmishes  and  house- 
burning  raged  between  the  castle  and  the  Regent's  troops  at  Leith : 
prisoners  were  hanged  on  both  sides.  In  June  the  noted  Thomas 
Crawford  had  a  success  near  Glasgow,  but  "  Gauntlets,"  as  he  was 
nicknamed,  soon  suffered  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  Hamiltons.^^ 
In  July  the  English  negotiators  succeeded  in  bringing  about  a 
truce,  which  was  fatal  to  the  Castilians.  Edinburgh  town  was 
to  be  open ;  but  the  king's  party,  unfairly,  garrisoned  it,  so  that 
Knox  returned  from  St  Andrews,  and,  dying  as  he  was,  preached 
political  sermons,  declaring  that  Kirkcaldy  would  come  to  be 
hanged.  His  prophecy,  ridiculed  by  Lethington,  was  sacred,  and 
had  to  be  fulfilled. 

At  this  time  the  English  Parliament  and  bishops  were  urging 
Elizabeth  to  despatch  Mary.  But  Elizabeth  was  now  in  league 
with  France,  which  still,  from  sentiment,  would  not  wholly  abandon 
Mary  :  moreover,  Elizabeth's  belief  in  the  sacredness  of  the 
anointed,  and  a  grain  of  conscience  as  to  her  kinswoman  and 
suppliant,   held  her  hands. 

But  the  news  of  the  Bartholomew  massacre  came  (August  24), 
and  with  it  horror  of  France,  and  terror  among  the  Protestants. 
Cecil,  Leicester,  and  Elizabeth  held  a  secret  conclave,  and  sent 
Killigrew  to  Scotland.  His  instructions  were  to  lead  Morton  and 
Mar  to  propose  the  surrender  of  Mary  for  execution.  Scottish 
hostages  were  to  be  given  to  ensure  the  certainty  of  her  death. ^^^^ 
This  was  arranged  on  September  10.  Killigrew  negotiated  through 
Nicholas  Elphinstone,  a  favourite  agent  of  the  late  Regent  Murray. 
"  As  for  John  Knox,  that  thing,  you  may  see  by  my  despatch  to  Mr 
Secretary,  is  done,"  writes  Killigrew  (October  6).^°^  But  there 
were  difficulties.  Morton's  terms  were  high,  and  he  stickled  for 
some  kind  of  secret  process,  and  military  aid  ;  even,  perhaps,  for  a 
meeting  of  Parliament.     But  Elizabeth  did  not  wish  her  hand  to 


DEATH   OF   MAR.      FAILURE   OF   INTRIGUE   (1572).      243 

be  seen,  and  of  course,  when  the  thing  was  done,  would  have 
disavowed,  as  usual,  her  instruments.  The  negotiation  fell  through, 
as  it  was  plainly  impracticable.  Elizabeth,  if  she  was  to  make 
Morton  and  Mar  her  assassins,  must  pay  them,  and  avow  them. 
She  must  send  troops  to  protect  the  doers  of  the  deed,  must  make 
a  defensive  league  with  the  king's  party,  take  James  under  her 
protection,  and  promise  that  what  befell  his  mother  should  not 
affect  his  English  claims.  She  must  help  Mar  to  reduce  the  castle, 
and  pay  the  arrears  of  his  troops.  Cecil  saw  that  these  articles 
could  not  be  accepted,  and  on  November  3  announced  to  Leicester 
the  failure  of  his  plot.  The  death  of  Mar  at  Stirling  on  October 
28  would  probably,  in  any  case,  have  put  an  end  to  the  scheme. ^''^ 

The  effect  of  the  Bartholomew  massacre  on  the  Kirk  was  to 
make  it  clamour  for  the  execution  of  all  Scottish  Catholics  who 
did  not  recant  their  belief.  Fortunately  the  ministers  and  com- 
missioners of  the  Kirk  were  never  permitted  to  have  a  Bartholomew 
of  their  own,  and  "proceed  against"  their  fellow-Christians,  "even 
to  the  death."  110 

The  first  step  was  to  be  excommunication,  then  confiscation 
and  exile.  If  they  remain  in  the  country,  "  it  shall  be  lawful  for 
all  the  subjects  of  this  realm  to  invade  them,  and  every  one  of 
them,  to  the  death."  To  the  General  Assembly  which  made  these 
proposals  "never  one  great  man  or  lord  came,  except  the  Laird  of 
Lundie,  and  some,  but  few,  lairds  of  Lothian."  The  articles 
expressed  only  the  Christianity  of  the  preachers.-*^^^ 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   IX. 

1  Froude,  viii.  464  ;  Lingard,  vi.  94,  note  2  C,  1855. 

2  La  Mothe  Fcnelon,  i.  133-162. 

*  See  Appendix  B.,  "  Logan  of  Restalrig  and  tlie  Gowrie  Conspiracy." 

*  Bain,  Calendar,  ii.  583,  585  ;  Goodall,  ii.  200,  201,  272,  273,  281,  307,  309; 
La  Mothe  Fenelon,  i.  82  ;  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  pp.  283-286. 

^  Memoranda  by  Cecil,  December  22,  Bain,  Calendar,  ii.  589. 

*  Bain,  Calendar,  ii.  588.  '^  Goodall,  ii.  300.  *  Fenelon,  i.  208. 

*  Hosack,  i.  480-499;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1569,  ix.  131-138. 
^^  Anderson,  iii.  35-39.  ^^  Labanoff,  ii.  295. 

^-  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  28.  "  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  44;  Fenelon,  i.  343. 

"  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  45,46.  -"^  Diurnal,  p.  142;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  46, 47. 

"  Herries  to  Elizabeth,  July  5,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  93  ;  Diurnal,  p.  45. 


244  NOTES. 

^^  Anderson,  iii.  36-39.  ^^  Labanoff,  ii.  339-341. 

^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  73.  The  terms  suggested  for  the  arrangement  are  in  For. 
Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  74. 

20  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  84.  -^  Labanoff,  ii.  36S. 

^  Haynes,  Burleigh  Papers,  p.  520.  ^  Anderson,  iii.  70. 

^  Bain,  ii.  661.  -^  Bain,  Calendar,  ii.  663,  664.  666. 

^*  Anderson,  iii.  70,  71.  ^  Privy  Council  Register,  ii.  1-9. 

^^  Hunsdon  to  Cecil,  Berwick,  August  5,  Bain,  ii.  666,  667. 

^  Lennox  MSS.  ;  Hosack,  i.  250,  251  ;  Schiern's  Bothwell. 

3"  Bain,  ii.  697,  698. 

^^  Declarations  of  Paris,  Laing,  ii.  270-290.  ^'  Bain,  ii.  668. 

^^  Diurnal,  147,  148  ;  Hunsdon  to  Cecil,  September  8,  Bain,  ii.  674. 

^  Bain,  ii.  691.  '^  Bain,  ii.  677. 

^^  Chalmers,  ii.  486,  487,  Note  A.  ^  Haynes,  p.  522. 

3^  Haynes,  p.  525.  ^  Murray  to  Cecil,  October  29,  1569  ;  Bain,  ii.  698. 

^^  Bain,  ii.  699,  700.  ^  Bannatyne's  Journal,  p.  481. 

*-  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  152.  «  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  155. 

**  Diurnal,  p.  154. 

^  Anderson,  iii.  84 ;  Fenelon,  iv.  6-9  (?) ;  Labanoff,  iii.  16. 

■'^  Froude,  iii.  165,  1866.  *''  Spanish  Calendar,  i.  665. 

^  Froude,  iii.  1866,  200,  201  ;  Goodall,  ii.  90. 

49  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  185,  186.  ^o  Yot.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  177,  178. 

^1  Haynes,  pp.  576,  577.        ^'-  Knox,  vi.  569,  570.        ^^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  1S8. 

*^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  176,  177.  ^'  Diurnal,  p.  158. 

^^  Diurnal,  pp.  160,  161.  ^''  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  196. 

*s  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  226.  ^^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  230. 

^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  230,  231.  *^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  233,  234. 

"-  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  252.  ®^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  269. 

^  Strype,  Annals,  ii.  Appendix  ix.        *'  Tytler,  332-334,  July  29,  1570. 

^®  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  343.  ^'  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  33S,  September  16. 

®*  Randolph  to  Cecil,  October  2  ;    For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  348. 

*9  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  351  ;  Haynes,  p.  60S.  The  terms  proposed  by  Cecil  to 
Mary,  October  5. 

^"  Sussex  to  Cecil,  October  9.     For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  352. 

'^  Randolph  to  Cecil,  October  15  ;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  354,  355.  Archibald 
Douglas  to  Mary,  April  1583  (?) ;  Laing,  ii.  331-336.  Compare,  in  a  form  prob- 
ably exaggerateil,  Claude  Nau  (Stevenson),  pp.  35,  243. 

"  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  356.  7*  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  359. 

^•^  Span.  Cal.,  ii.  282.  ^'  La  Mothe  Fenelon,  iii.  358.     November  9,  1570. 

'®  Diurnal,  pp.  194,  195.  "^  Bannatyne,  pp.  67-89. 

'^  Fenelon,  iii.  403.     December  iS,  1570.  '^  Diurnal,  p.  196. 

^  Labanoff,  iii.  174-176. 

81  Mary  to  Lesley,  February  8,  1571  ;  Labanoff,  iii.  1S0-187. 

^-  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  392. 

**^  Froude,  iv.  145  ;  Hosack,  ii.  38  ;  Fenelon,  iv.  20,  21. 

'^  Fenelon,  iv.  1-20.  ^^  Labanoff,  iii.  222  ei  seg. 

*®  Labanoff,  ui  snpra,  p.  231.  ^  Labanoff,  iii.  260. 

®*  Diurnal,  pp.  204,  205  ;  Bannatyne,  p.  121. 

8*  Compare  Buchanan,  fol.  215  and  fol.  243.  In  the  'Detection'  and  'Book  of 
Articles'  (156S)  Buchanan  does  not  accuse  Hamilton  :  the  plan  then  was  to  repre- 
sent only  Bothwell  and  Mary  as  guilty. 


NOTES.  245 

^  James  Melville,  Diary,  p.  22. 

"^  Diurnal,  pp.  214-217  ;  For.  Cal.  Eliz. ,  ix.  447. 

®'-  May  20,  Drury  to  Privy  Council,  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  44S  ;  Bannatyne,  156 
et  seq. 

83  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  45 1.     May  23.  ^^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  460. 

8^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  526.  Kirkcaldy  and  Lcthington  to  Drury,  September  6. 
Also  p.  532. 

96  Pri\-y  Council  Register,  ii.  79,  80,  114,  115. 

8^  Book  of  the  Universal  Kirk,  pp.  120-128,  250,  257,  285. 

^^  Lesley's  Diary,  Bannatyne  Miscellany,  iii.  117-156;  Murdin,  pp.  I-150; 
Froude,  iii.  210-299.     1866. 

88  Murdin,  p.  57.     November  8,  157 1. 

'^'^  La  Mothe,  vii.  275,  iv.  301  ct  seq.  "^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  ix.  555. 

^°^  Bannatyne,  p.  292.  ^"^  Bannatyne,  p.  323. 

104  Prjyy  Council  Register,  ii.  171. 

'"=  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  61,  76,  94,  99,  no,  119,  124.  For  Archibald  Douglas, 
of.  pp.  52,  56,  83,  89,  91,  100,  106. 

"«  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  127,  147. 

^"^  Murdin,  pp.  224,  225.  ""^^  Tytier,  vii.  384. 

^"8  The  best  account  of  these  intrigues  is  in  Tytier,  vii.  ch.  iv.  and  Appendix  xi. 
with  letters.  The  *  Foreign  Calendar '  of  Elizabeth  (x. )  is  singularly  inadequate 
at  this  point. 

""  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  195.  ^  Bannatyne,  pp.  406-411. 


246 


CHAPTER   X. 

REGENCY    OF    MORTON. 

I572-I577-I5SI- 

The  death  of  the  Regent  Mar  was  naturally  followed  by  the  Regency 
of  Morton.  Few  stranger  souls  than  Morton  existed  even  in  the 
Scotland  of  the  Reformation.  The  open  licentiousness  of  his 
private  life  is,  comparatively  speaking,  a  high  light  on  the  darkness 
of  his  character,  and  proves  that,  in  hypocrisy,  he  was  not  absolutely 
consistent.  Double  murderer  as  he  was,  he  talked  the  speech  of  the 
godly  with  skill  and  freedom.  His  avarice  may  have  been  over- 
stated :  he  needed  money  for  the  king's  government :  he  really 
had  a  care  for  the  public  weal,  and  his  fall  was  partly  due,  like 
the  unpopularity  of  Murray,  to  his  salutary  severities.  He  had 
the  merit  of  detesting  the  interference  of  preachers  with  politics. 
Attached  to  his  family,  the  Douglases,  he  appointed  nonentities, 
murderers,  and  forgers  of  the  name  to  bishoprics,  minor  livings,  and 
seats  on  the  bench  of  justice.  He  robbed  rich  and  poor  with 
equal  ruthlessness.  But  he  had  the  virtue  of  personal  courage 
and  stedfast  resolution.  No  man  did  more  to  keep  the  preachers 
within  bounds.  By  a  system  of  fines  he  discouraged  disorder. 
When  the  end  came,  and  he  followed  others  among  Darnley's 
murderers  to  the  scaffold,  the  ministers  were  sincerely  sorry,  for  he 
was  as  stout  a  Protestant  as  Bothwell  himself. 

The  Regency  of  Morton  meant  the  ruin  of  the  Castilians  and  of 
Mary's  cause  in  Scotland.  He  let  Elizabeth  know,  in  short,  that 
she  must  make  up  her  mind.  She  must  aid  him  with  money,  a 
pension,  and  artillery,  or  he  would  look  elsewhere  for  assistance. 

On  the  day  after  Morton's  election  Knox  expired  (November 
24,  1572).  He  had  asked  Morton  if  he  had  any  knowledge  of 
Darnley's  murder,  and  Morton  had  lied. 


DEATH   OF   KNOX   (NOV.    24,    1572).  247 

Of  Knox  we  may  cite  two  contemporary  opinions.  The  first  is 
that  of  his  secretary,  Bannatyne  :  "  This  man  of  God,  the  light  of 
Scotland,  the  comfort  of  the  Kirk  within  the  same,  the  mirror  of 
godliness  and  pattern  and  example  to  all  true  ministers,  in  purity 
of  life,  soundness  in  doctrine,  and  in  boldness  in  reproving  of 
wickedness,  and  one  that  cared  not  the  favour  of  men  (how  great 
soever  they  were)  to  reprove  their  abuses  and  sins."  ^  The  other 
verdict  is  from  the  hand  of  the  author  of  the  '  Diurnal  of  Occurrents  ' : 
"John  Knox,  minister,  deceased  in  Edinburgh,  who  had,  as  was 
alleged,  the  most  part  of  the  blame  of  all  the  sorrows  of  Scotland, 
since  the  slaughter  of  the  late  Cardinal "  (Beaton).^  The  most 
severe  of  modern  verdicts  on  Knox  is  that  of  Mr  Froude :  "  In 
purity,  in  uprightness,  in  courage,  truth,  and  stainless  honour,  the 
Regent  Murray  and  our  English  Latimer  were  perhaps  his  equals." 
As  to  Murray  and  purity,  Knox  had  none  of  Murray's  avarice :  he 
betrayed  no  man  :  he  took  money  from  none,  to  none  did  he 
truckle.  He  even  urged  clemency  on  Murray,  after  Langside  fight, 
and  the  Regent  spared  his  future  murderer  Bothwellhaugh.  But, 
as  Lethington  said,  Knox  "was  a  man  subject  unto  vanity."  As  a 
historian,  he  is,  necessarily,  a  partisan,  and  is  credulous  of  evil  about 
his  adversaries,  and  apt  to  boast,  as  the  heathen  Odysseus  declines 
to  do,  over  dead  men  and  women.  As  a  Christian,  Knox's  fault  was 
to  confine  his  view  too  much  to  the  fighting  parts  of  Scripture,  and 
to  the  denunciations  of  the  prophets.  The  "  sweet  reasonableness  " 
of  the  Gospel  was  to  him  less  attractive.  He  laid  on  men  burdens 
too  heavy  to  be  borne,  and  tried  to  substitute  for  sacerdotalism  the 
sway  of  preachers  but  dubiously  inspired.  His  horror  of  political 
murder  was  confined  to  the  murders  perpetrated  by  his  opponents. 
His  intellect,  once  convinced  of  certain  dogmas,  remained  stereo- 
typed in  a  narrow  mould.  How  little  his  theology  affected,  morally, 
the  leaders  of  his  party,  every  page  in  this  portion  of  history  tells. 
He  was  the  greatest  force  working  in  the  direction  of  resistance  to 
constituted  authority, — itself  then  usually  corrupt,  but  sometimes 
l)etter  than  anarchy  tempered  by  political  sermons.  His  efforts  in 
favour  of  education,  and  of  a  proper  provision  for  the  clergy  and  the 
poor,  were  too  far  in  advance  of  his  age  to  be  entirely  successful. 
He  bequeathed  to  Scotland  a  new  and  terrible  war  between  the 
Kirk  and  the  State.  He  was  a  wonderful  force,  but  the  force  was 
rather  that  of  Judaism  than  of  the  Gospel. 

The  new  year,  1573,  was  marked  by  the  tragedy  of  the  castle, 


248  PACIFICATION    OF    PERTH    (FEB.    1573). 

and  the  fall  of  Mary's  party  as  a  party  in  arms.  In  August  1572 
Lethington  had  written  to  Mary  in  a  tone  almost  of  despair.^  With- 
out money  and  aid  from  France,  the  castle  must  fall.  The  town 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  and  Morton  poisoned  the  wells 
near  the  castle.  Sir  James  Balfour  turned  his  coat,  gaining  a 
pardon  from  Morton  (January  9,  1573).  He  was  thought  to  be 
the  deepest  in  the  secret  iniquity  of  Darnley's  murder :  later  his 
knowledge  was  used  to  ruin  Morton.^  Balfour,  apparently,  betrayed 
the  Castilians  just  before  their  approaching  fall.  Like  Knox,  he 
had  joined  the  assassins  of  Beaton,  and  with  Knox  had  rowed  in 
the  galleys.  He  next  alternately  betrayed  Mary  of  Guise  and  the 
Lords  of  the  Congregation.  As  Clerk  Registrar  he  is  supposed  to 
have  prepared  the  band  for  Darnley's  murder,  and  he  betrayed  the 
castle  to  Morton.  In  a  meeting  at  Perth  on  February  23,  1573, 
he  procured  the  pacification  of  most  of  Mary's  party  who  deserted 
Kirkcaldy ;  he  had  refused  to  desert  them ;  the  Gordons  and 
Hamiltons  abandoned  her,  and  the  affair  of  Darnley's  death  was 
to  be  slurred  over  for  the  moment.^  Balfour  passed  on  to  other 
treacheries  :  already,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Kirk  and  commissioners 
from  the  Three  Estates,  Episcopacy  had  been  established,  the 
beginning  of  countless  evils.*^ 

The  Castilians  alone,  since  the  pacification  of  Perth,  and  the 
surrender  of  Huntly  and  the  Hamiltons,  now  supported  Mary. 
James  Kirkcaldy,  with  a  large  sum  in  French  gold,  had  succeeded 
in  landing  at  Blackness ;  but  thence  he  could  not  move.  The 
castle  garrison  suffered  from  want  of  water.  Lethington  could  not 
endure  the  vibration  of  the  gun-fire,  and  was  laid  "  in  the  low  vault 
of  David's  Tower."  Surrender  he  dared  not;  the  gibbet  awaited 
him ;  Morton  would  never  have  let  him  go.  Lethington  knew  too 
much.  He  persistently  hoped  that,  from  parsimony  and  fear  of 
France,  Elizabeth  would  never  aid  Morton  with  men  and  artillery. 
But  Killigrew  kept  urging  this  course  on  her,  and  English  engineers 
from  Berwick  sketched  the  fortifications,  arranged  and  organised  the 
attack,  and  justly  estimated  that  it  would  occupy  but  a  short  time. 
James  Kirkcaldy  was  captured  by  Morton,  it  is  said,  through  the 
treachery  of  his  wife  ;  his  gold  was  seized.  A  treaty  had  been 
arranged  by  Ruthven  with  Drury  on  April  17  to  the  following 
effect.  The  Crown  property  in  the  castle  was  to  be  retained  for 
the  king.  Grange,  Lethington,  Lord  Home,  Sir  Robert  Melville, 
and   Logan   of  Restalrig,   if  captured,    were  to   be   "  justified "   by 


THE   CASTLE   SURRENDERS   TO   ENGLAND.  249 

Scottish  law,  "wherein  her  majesty's  advice  shall  be  used."  It 
was  not  used  in  Grange's  case ;  Restalrig,  Hume,  and  Melville 
were  more  fortunate.''  An  English  force,  with  abundant  artillery, 
now  entered  Edinburgh  on  April  25  under  Drury.  Trenches 
and  mounds  were  dug  and  erected  at  close  quarters.  By  May 
1 7  thirty  heavy  guns  were  in  position.  The  castle  guns  were 
in  part  silenced,  and  on  May  26  the  assault  was  given  at  The 
Spur,  an  outwork  looking  down  the  High  Street.  The  Spur  was 
taken,  and  a  parley  was  called.  Kirkcaldy  and  Robert  Melville 
came  out  and  had  an  interview  with  Drury.  On  May  28  Mary's 
flag  was  struck ;  the  castle  surrendered.  In  losing  The  Spur  they 
lost  their  last  poor  supply  of  water ;  the  garrison  was  exhausted  and 
mutinous. 

Among  the  captives  were  Lord  Home,  Lethington,  Kirkcaldy, 
their  wives.  Lady  Argyll,  and  Robert  Melville.®  Morton  would 
admit  the  chief  prisoners  (the  whole  garrison  was  but  200  men) 
to  no  terms ;  the  Queen  of  England  must  decide  their  fate.  They 
were  carried  to  Drury's  quarters  as  Elizabeth's  prisoners.  Morton, 
says  Killigrew,  "thinks  them  now  fitter  for  God  than  for  this  world, 
for  sundry  considerations."  They  knew  too  much  about  Morton.^ 
Elizabeth  (June  9)  asked  for  information  about  their  offences ; 
Kirkcaldy  and  Lethington  were  in  vain  appealing  to  their  old  ally, 
Cecil,  saying,  "  Forget  not  your  own  good  natural."  Happily 
for  himself,  Lethington  died,  doubtless  of  "  his  natural  sickness." 
His  body  lay  unburied,  some  atrocities  were  intended  against  it ; 
but  his  wife,  Mary  Fleming,  successfully  appealed  to  Cecil,  sup- 
ported by  AthoU  and  Drury  himself.  Morton  hanged  Kirkcaldy  on 
August  3.  A  hundred  gentlemen  of  Scotland  offered  their  services 
under  "  man-rent "  to  the  House  of  Douglas,  if  Morton  would  be 
merciful;  nay,  even  oflFered  ;^2ooo  yearly,  and  ;,^2o,ooo  worth  of 
Mary's  jewels.  The  preachers,  he  thought,  clamoured  for  blood, 
and  blood  they  must  have.  The  prestige  of  the  dead  Knox  would 
have  been  shaken  if  Kirkcaldy,  for  whom  he  prophesied  hanging, 
had  not  died.^*^ 

In  a  more  fortunate  age  Kirkcaldy  might  have  been  as  honest  as 
he  was  valiant.  Indeed,  if  we  may  trust  Sir  James  Melville,  who 
certainly  was  much  behind  the  scenes  of  diplomacy,  Kirkcaldy's 
whole  conduct  while  in  the  castle  was  that  of  a  Bayard.  Murray 
could  trust  him,  though  he  could  not  trust  Murray.  When  Morton 
first  became  Regent,  Kirkcaldy  might  have  made  his  peace  on  the 


2  50  DEATH    OF   KIRKCALDY   AND    LETHINGTON. 

best  terms ;  but  Morton  would  not  in  that  case  admit  Huntly,  the 
Hamiltons,  and  the  rest  of  the  queen's  party  to  terms.  Kirkcaldy, 
knowing  this,  preferred  to  be  betrayed  rather  than  to  betray.  He 
was  free,  we  are  told,  from  avarice  and  ambition.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that,  to  Melville,  Kirkcaldy  seemed  a  very  perfect  gentle 
knight. 

In  any  age  Lethington  would  have  been  pre-eminent  as  a 
politician.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  conjecture  why  he  made  the 
fatal  error  of  entering  into  the  plot  of  murdering  Darnley.  That 
unhappy  prince  was  then  no  longer  dangerous ;  and  Lethington 
naturally,  and  for  private  reasons,  detested  Bothwell,  from  whom  he 
had  far  more  to  dread  than  from  Darnley.  It  has  been  guessed 
that  he  expected  Bothwell  to  rush  to  ruin,  and  so  himself  to 
escape  from  two  enemies  by  one  murder.  But  Lethington's 
acquiescence  in  the  deed  of  Kirk-o'-Field  was  his  own  bane ;  it 
drove  him  fatally  into  ]Mary's  fated  party,  and  the  castle  was  so 
gallantly  held  from  no  romantic  attachment  to  the  queen  (of  which 
we  hardly  find  a  trace  in  the  history  of  the  Scots  of  the  day), 
but  merely  because  for  Lethington  there  was  no  safety  beyond  its 
walls.  Outside  the  circle  of  Mary's  personal  attendants,  her  ladies, 
and  such  men  as  Arthur  Erskine  and  George  and  Willie  Douglas, 
with  possibly  Herries,  and,  as  far  as  he  dared,  Robert  Melville, 
romance  in  Scotland  had  no  effect  upon  politics,  though  in  England 
it  was  otherwise.  Men  acted  as  their  personal  interests,  or  seeming 
interests,  inspired  them ;  and  loving  loyalty  to  the  queen  is  a  refrac- 
tion from  the  Jacobite  sentiment  of  a  later  time. 

Lethington's  brother,  John,  and  Robert  Melville  were  spared 
when  Kirkcaldy  died,  Robert  owing  his  safety  to  Elizabeth.  He 
was  for  many  months  held  a  prisoner  at  Lethington  Castle  and 
elsewhere,  continuing  to  intrigue  for  Mary  after  his  release.  His 
examination  was  taken  on  October  19  before  the  Commendator  of 
Dunfermline  and  others,  the  questions  asked  covering  the  period 
since  October  1568.  We  have  quoted  this  document  several 
times,  in  relation  to  the  intrigues  at  York.  If  Melville  spoke 
truth,  Lesley  in  his  examination  before  Cecil  did  not.  Melville 
was  closely  examined  as  to  Mary's  jewels  in  the  Castle,  and 
INIary  declared  that  Morton  hanged  Mossman,  the  goldsmith,  to 
prevent  her  from  learning  where  her  jewels  were.  She  acquitted 
the  late  Regent  Murray  of  dishonest  dealing  as  to  these  valuable 
objects,   of  which   three  great  rubies,   three    great   diamonds,   and 


CONDITION   OF   THE   COUNTRY.  25  I 

the  diamond-set  jewel  known  as  "  the  H "  remained  in  the  hands 
of  the  widow  of  Murray,  who  married  Colin,  the  brother  and  suc- 
cessor of  Argyll.  Morton,  in  the  course  of  the  next  years,  actu- 
ally outlawed  Argyll  for  not  restoring  the  jewels,  which  Lady  Argyll 
professed  to  retain  in  pledge  for  money  expended  by  Murray  in 
the  public  service.  The  dispute  was  finally  pacified  by  Elizabeth, 
Argyll  restoring  "the  great  H"  and  other  diamonds  to  Morton.^^ 

History,  if  closely  interrogated,  is  rich  in  details  about  such  per- 
sonal matters  as  these,  but  about  the  economic  conditions  of  a  people 
is  apt  to  be  silent.  We  might  suppose  that  "  the  Douglas  wars,"  now 
ended,  had  reduced  the  country  to  distress  and  destitution.  Edin- 
burgh had  for  years  been  bereft  of  her  richer  citizens  :  many  of  their 
houses  were  burned  :  the  timber-work  of  others  had  supplied  the 
Castilians  with  fuel.  Glasgow,  not  then  commercially  important, 
had  been  threatened  and  distressed  by  the  Lennox-Hamilton  raids. 
"Gauntlets"  (Thomas  Crawford)  had  despoiled  the  Hamilton 
tenantry :  in  the  North,  Huntly's  brother,  Adam  Gordon,  had 
conquered  the  Forbeses  and  ruled  Huntly's  country  at  his  will. 
The  Borders,  where  public  robbery  was  the  rule,  not  the  exception, 
had  not  only  been  devastated  by  Sussex  and  by  Homes  and  Kers, 
but  by  the  raids  which  Elliots  and  Armstrongs,  Bells,  Croziers,  and 
Nixons,  had  been  known  to  push  as  far  as  Biggar.  Of  the  High- 
lands we  know  that  the  new  Earl  of  Argyll  (the  Earl  of  the  Darnley 
murder  died  about  this  time)  hanged  over  180  caterans  in  one 
raid  of  justice. 

Yet,  despite  war,  anarchy,  and  plunder,  Scotland  had  increased  in 
wealth  and  population.  Just  after  Mar's  death  on  November  11, 
1572,  Killigrew  wrote  to  Cecil,  "Methinks  I  see  the  noblemen's  great 
credit  decay  in  the  country,  and  the  barons,  boroughs,  and  suchlike 
take  more  upon  them,  the  ministry  and  religion  increaseth,  and  the 
desire  in  them  to  prevent  the  practice  of  the  Papists  :  the  number 
of  able  men,  both  for  horse  and  foot,  very  great  and  well  furnished ; 
their  navy  so  augmented  as  it  is  a  thing  almost  incredible."  Yet 
Drury  found  Berwick  flooded  with  Scots  silver,  valued  at  fifteen 
pence,  but  worth  only  ninepence.  "A  Scotch  merchant  declared 
that  ^100  English  put  into  the  mint  would  yield  ;^iooo  Scots." ^- 

It  is  probable  that  the  prosperity  noted  by  Killigrew,  both  now 
and  later,  was  confined  to  the  Lothians,  Stirlingshire,  and  Fife.  As 
we  have  seen,  the  preachers  had  been  obliged  to  submit  to  a  form 
of  Episcopacy,  and  their  liberties  were  more  or  less  trammelled  by 


252  STATE   OF   THE    KIRK. 

Morton,  who  also  robbed  them  of  their  livehhood.  But  these 
things,  after  all,  were  the  rebukes  of  a  friend.  Whatever  else 
Morton  might  be,  he  was  decidedly  anti-papal ;  wherefore  many 
sins  were  forgiven  him  by  the  preachers.  He  is  reported  to  have 
said  that  they  were  meddlesome  knaves  who  would  be  none  the 
worse  of  a  hanging.  This  tradition  is  more  or  less  borne  out  by  a 
report  on  the  state  of  Scotland  sent  in  1594  to  Pope  Clement  VIII. 
by  the  Jesuits  in  the  country.  They  say  that  "  Morton  was  a  man 
of  prudence,  and  exceedingly  anxious  that  everything  should  be  done 
for  the  public  good  of  the  kingdom.  He  did  not  persecute  the 
Catholics,  .  .  .  but  even  showed  them  a  certain  amount  of  favour. 
As  for  the  ministers  of  his  own  religion,  he  treated  them  as  men  of 
no  character  or  consideration.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  continually 
repeating  that  there  was  no  room  for  comparing  the  most  wealthy  of 
the  ministers  with  the  poorest  of  the  priests  whom  he  had  ever  seen  : 
that  in  the  priest  there  was  more  fidelity,  more  politeness,  more 
gravity,  more  hospitality,  than  in   the  whole  herd  of  the  others." 

The  writer  goes  on  to  say  that  Morton  was  "  asked  to  give  four 
parishes  to  each  minister,"  obviously  that  the  preacher  might  become 
"  a  bloated  pluralist."  He  himself  "  was  anxious  that  these  useless 
beings  should  be  reduced  to  the  fewest  possible."  So  he  gave  them 
four  churches  apiece,  but  kept  the  revenues  of  three.^^ 

This  is  not  an  impartial  view :  the  ministers,  on  the  other  hand, 
were  anxious  to  "  plant "  new  kirks,  as  the  records  of  the  General 
Assembly  prove,  and  were  concerned  about  the  ruinous  condition  of 
the  buildings,  some  of  which  were  used  as  sheepfolds.  The  preachers 
were  so  poor  that  they  were  allowed  to  keep  taps,  or  alehouses. 
There  must  have  been  wealthier  men  in  their  ranks,  or  it  would 
have  been  needless  to  forbid  them  to  wear  "  silk  hats,"  and  gar- 
ments remarked  for  "  superfluous  and  vain  cutting  out,"  and  "  variant 
hues  in  clothing,  as  red,  blue,  yellow,  and  the  like,  which  declares 
the  lightness  of  the  mind."  "  Costly  gilding  of  knives  or  whingers" 
was  also  forbidden  to  the  clergy,  who,  to  be  sure,  needed  whingers, 
for  they,  and  their  parishioners,  were  often  prevented  from  attending 
church  because  they  were  involved  in  deadly  feuds.^*  Learning  was 
not  on  a  high  level.  Archibald  Douglas  declined  to  adventure  him- 
self in  the  Greek  Testament  when  examined  for  the  parsonship  of 
Glasgow ;  and  a  gifted  preacher  might  be  elected  though  ignorant  of 
Latin.  There  were,  indeed,  men  of  learning  and  foreign  education, 
like  Rutherford,  Ramsay,  Syme,  Henryson,  and  Smeton,  with  David- 


MORTON'S   CORRUPTION.  253 

son,  of  St  Leonard's  (author  of  the  play  on  Kirkcaldy's  hanging),  who 
wrote  a  poem  against  pluralists,  calling  Rutherford  a  goose : — 

"Had  gude  John  Knox  not  yit  bene  deid, 
It  had  not  come  unto  this  held  ; 
Had  they  myntit  till  sic  ane  steir, 
He  had  maid  hevin  and  eirth  to  heir." 

Davidson  was  banished  by  Morton  :  his  poem  shows  the  distaste  of 
many  of  the  preachers  to  the  innovations  of  the  Regent. ^^ 

'■'  This  new  ordour  that  is  tane 
Wes  nocht  maid  be  the  Court  allane  ; 
The  Kirk's  Commissionars  wes  thaie. 
And  did  aggrie  to  less  and  mair," 

says  the  courtier,  in  Davidson's  Dialogue. 

"They  sail  be  first  that  sail  repent  it," 

says  the  clerk,  and  the  Kirk  in  1575,  aiid  onwards,  did  repent 
of  their  concessions  to  Morton.  As  a  result  of  his  manoeuvres, 
the  worthier  clergy  were  starved  and  overworked,  while  scores  of 
young  men  of  family,  intruded  on  parishes,  exceeded  in  silk  hats  and 
gilded  whingers,  neglecting  and  dilapidating  their  cures.  Out  of 
twenty-seven  summoned  to  render  account  of  their  conduct,  only 
three  appeared.  Among  these  three  was  not  the  vicar  of  Carstairs, 
"who  hath  slain  the  Laird  of  Corston."^^  Patrick  Adamson  of 
Paisley,  later  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews,  "  waited  not  on  his  cure." 
The  new  bishops  aimed  at  being  independent  of  the  censures  of  the 
General  Assembly,  and  at  avoiding  the  care  of  any  particular  flock. 
They  were  in  simoniacal  dependence  on  the  great  nobles,  and  were 
accused  of  private  immorality. 

Under  Morton,  in  fact,  the  Kirk  was  being  reduced  to  the  same 
condition  as  the  Church  before  the  Reformation.  Ignorance,  proi- 
ligacy,  secular  robbery,  under  a  thin  disguise,  of  ecclesiastical 
revenues,  were  all  returning :  ministers  sold  their  livings.  The 
bishops  had  none  of  the  sacerdotal  and  mystic  character  which 
attaches  to  them  in  the  Catholic  faith,  and  even  to  some  extent 
in  the  Anglican  community.  As  rulers  and  organisers  they  had 
little  or  no  authority.  Morton's  personal  attitude,  considering 
what  the  Jesuits  say  of  him,  is  hard  to  understand.  Politically, 
he  was  anti-Catholic,  and  struggled  hard  at  this  time  to  secure 
a  defensive  league  with  England  and  assistance  in  money  against 
France  and  Mary's  party.     This  Elizabeth,  though  urged  by  Killi- 


254  THE   GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

grew  to  assent,  declined  to  provide.  She  finally  deserted  Morton, 
like  her  other  Protestant  allies  in  Scotland,  France,  and  Holland. 
Mere  need  of  money,  doubtless,  was  one  of  Morton's  motives  in 
his  dealings  with  the  Kirk.  He  also  foresaw  their  turbulent 
interference  with  the  State.  But  possibly,  despite  the  cant  which 
he  knew  how  to  use,  he  was  really  averse  by  taste  from  the 
rugged  austerity  of  Presbyterianism. 

The  Kirk,  and  the  country,  whose  character  needed  the  sever- 
ity and  righteousness  of  the  Calvinistic  dispensation,  were  thus  in 
hard  straits.  The  Presbyterian  establishment  was  on  the  point  of 
becoming  the  tool  of  profligate  politicians. 

A  glance  at  the  proceedings  of  General  Assemblies  will  serve 
to  show  the  ecclesiastical  perils  of  Scotland  at  this  moment  of 
transition.  In  August  1573  the  Assembly  met  at  Edinburgh,  earls, 
lords,  barons,  bishops,  superintendents,  commissioners,  and  preachers 
being  present.  A  recent  Assembly  of  1572,  as  we  saw,  had  been 
shunned  by  the  nobles,  who,  perhaps,  were  not  minded  to  forfeit, 
banish,  and  slay  all  the  Catholics  of  the  country.  Severe  measures, 
however,  were  taken.  On  May  4,  1574,  "a  priest  was  hanged  in 
Glasgow  for  saying  of  mass."  ^^  This  was  probably  the  priest  who 
accused  Archbishop  Hamilton  of  Darnley's  murder,  on  the  strength, 
as  he  averred,  of  something  revealed  to  him  under  seal  of  confession. 
Thousands  of  Catholics  were  driven  abroad — some  of  them  men 
of  learning;  more  were  swordsmen,  who  took  foreign  service  in 
France  and  Sweden. 

To  return  to  the  Assembly  :  its  proceedings  usually  began  by 
"  trial  of  superintendents  and  bishops."  The  democratic  Assembly 
delighted  to  rake  up  episcopal  misdeeds.  Douglas,  the  "tulchan" 
Archbishop  of  St  Andrews,  and  the  Bishop  of  Dunkeld  were  "  de- 
lated " :  the  former  for  acts  of  negligence ;  the  latter  on  suspicion  of 
simony,  perjury,  and  want  of  due  severity  against  idolaters  like  the 
Earl  of  Atholl.  Strong  measures  were  to  be  taken  against  all  who 
harboured  excommunicated  persons.  The  Bishop  of  Galloway,  a 
most  undesirable  prelate  in  all  respects,  was  accused  of  being  of 
the  Queen's  party ';  of  praying  for  Mary ;  of  giving  thanks  for  the 
slaying  of  Lennox ;  of  comparing  himself  to  Moses  and  David, 
and  was  ordered  to  do  penance  in  sackcloth.  Morton  set  forth  a 
godly  preamble  as  to  his  intention  about  due  payment  of  ministers. 
Inquisition  into  the  crime  of  witchcraft  was  ordained ;  with  other 
matters. 


MONGREL   EPISCOPACY.  255 

In  the  Assembly  of  jNIarch  1574  the  Archbishop  of  St  Andrews 
was  "  put  at  "  again, — for  being  a  pluralist,  for  nepotism,  for  not 
preaching,  and  other  misdemeanours.  The  Bishop  of  Dunkeld  had 
not  yet  excommunicated  Athoil,  and  had  allowed  a  corpse  with  a 
super-cloth  over  it  to  be  carried  into  a  church  "  in  popish  manner." 
The  Bishop  of  Moray  was  delated  of  an  amorous  intrigue  with  a 
young  widow.  Censorship  of  literature  was  attempted ;  the  process 
lasted  for  some  years.  It  was  decided  that  the  powers  of  bishops 
in  their  dioceses  should  not  exceed  those  of  the  superintendents, 
and  that  they  should  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  discipline  of  the 
General  Assembly.  Morton,  as  we  saw,  had  induced  the  Kirk  to 
yield  to  him  their  thirds  of  the  benefices ;  he  would  take  care  that 
the  stipends  to  each  minister  should  be  duly  paid  within  each 
parish.  As  soon  as  the  preachers  permitted  this  course,  Morton 
simplified  matters  by  assigning  several  kirks  to  each  minister,  and 
keeping  the  stipends  himself.  The  Assembly  remonstrated,  but  to 
no  purpose.  It  continued  to  be  troubled  about  the  morals  of  the 
Bishop  of  Moray  ;  about  the  singular  reluctance  of  the  Bishop  of 
Dunkeld  to  excommunicate  his  most  powerful  neighbour ;  about 
the  introduction  of  heretical  books  "  by  Poles,  crammers  "  (keepers 
of  stalls,  or  crames),  "  and  others " ;  and  about  the  destruction  of 
"monuments  of  idolatry."  Many  kirks  were  found  to  be  ruinous 
throughout  the  country. 

The  assent  of  the  Kirk  to  the  arrangement  made  at  Leith  in  1572 
had  only  been  provisional,  and  subject  to  parliamentary  alteration. 
At  this  juncture,  1575,  a  new  Knox  arose  in  the  person  of  Andrew 
Melville,  and  the  great  question  of  Episcopacy  became  prominent, 
with  all  its  consequences  of  civil  war  waiting  to  be  developed.  The 
quarrel  is  one  which  tempts  to  partisanship.  It  has  been  shown 
that  Morton's  new  mongrel  kind  of  Church  government  was  of  the 
most  profligate  and  ruinous  kind.  The  Scriptural  and  apostolic 
character  of  Episcopacy,  with  all  the  arguments  from  the  New 
Testament  and  from  ecclesiastical  tradition,  cannot  here  be  dis- 
cussed. Morton's  kind  of  Episcopacy,  at  all  events,  was  unscrip- 
tural,  untraditional,  and  intolerable.  Here  is  an  example  of  the 
working  of  the  system.  Morton's  children  were  all  bastards,  and 
were  provided  for  thus  .  "  Pension  by  William,  Bishop  of  Aberdeen, 
of  ^^500  to  Archibald  Douglas,  son  natural  of  the  Regent."  "  Pen- 
sion by  Henry,  Commendator  of  Dunkeld,  to  James  Douglas,  son 
natural  of  the  Regent."     "  Pension  by  Robert,  Bishop  of  Caithness, 


256  ANDREW    MELVILLE   TO   THE    RESCUE. 

of  ;;^5oo  to  George  Douglas,  son  natural  of  the  Regent." ^^  On 
the  othec  side,  the  conduct  of  Andrew  Melville  and  other  opponents 
of  Prelacy  was  marked  by  courage  rather  than  by  amenity  and 
sweet  reasonableness.  The  men  were  fighting  for  the  Revolution 
of  1560,  and  as  time  went  on,  and  James  became  king  in  earnest, 
they  were  fighting  against  foreign  and  Catholic  intrigue.  Melville 
was  a  warrior :  he  could  wear  corslet  and  carry  spear  like  any  old 
martial  bishop  of  mediaeval  times.  The  rudeness  of  his  manners 
repels  sympathy,  and  the  theocratic  pretensions  of  the  Kirk,  which 
revived  under  his  influence,  were  incompatible  with  the  legitimate 
freedom  of  the  individual  citizen,  and  with  the  political  supremacy 
of  the  laity  in  the  State.  The  questions  at  issue  could  only  be 
settled  in  a  struggle  for  existence,  which  practically  lasted  for  a 
hundred  years.  Out  of  the  clash  of  these  two  forces,  both  fierce 
and  intolerant,  a  modus  vivendi  was  evolved  after  the  fall  of  the 
Stuarts,  whose  tyranny,  subduing  the  wild  "high-flying"  temper 
of  the  Kirkmen,  made  compromise  possible. 

The  leader  but  for  whom  the  Kirk  might  have  sunk  into  a  listless 
tool  of  the  State,  or  rather  of  the  party  in  power,  must  be  described. 
Andrew  Melville,  son  of  a  Fifeshire  laird  slain  at  Pinkie  (1547),  was 
born  at  Baldovy  in  1545.  At  Montrose  he  learned  Greek  under 
Marsillier,  and  in  1559  proceeded  to  the  University  of  St  Andrews. 
Here  he  alone,  in  the  university,  read,  not  in  Latin  translations  but 
in  Greek,  the  Ethics  of  Aristotle,  "  which  are  the  best."  He  appears 
to  have  known  George  Buchanan,  and  at  twenty  was  the  subject  of 
Latin  Elegiacs  by  a  wandering  Italian  scholar,  Pietro  Bizzari,  His 
"  honeyed  words "  are  praised  :  they  were  not  his  most  notable 
characteristic.  Proceeding  to  Paris,  he  read  under  Turnebus,  and 
the  revolutionary  logician.  Ramus.  Edmund  Hay,  a  Jesuit  who 
was  in  Scotland  at  the  time  of  Darnley's  murder,  and  who  had  no 
illusions  about  Queen  Mary,  was  organising  the  College  of  Clermont, 
and  put  Melville  on  his  mettle.  In  1568  Melville  was  at  Poictiers 
during  the  siege,  whence  he  went  to  Geneva,  and  was  associated 
with  Beza.  He  pursued  his  Greek  and  oriental  studies,  returning 
to  Scotland,  an  accomplished  scholar  and  ardent  Calvinist,  in  July 
1574.  He  was  offered  the  place  of  tutor  to  Morton's  children,  but 
preferred  the  Principalship  of  Glasgow  University,  for  which  he 
secured  new  endowments,  reorganising  the  studies,  and  establishing 
discipline.  Spottiswoode's  story  about  his  desire  to  destroy  the 
cathedral  is  not  corroborated  by  records,  though  it  has  a  strong  hold 


RAID   OF   THE   REIDSWIRE   (1575).  257 

on  tradition.  A  man  of  extraordinary  energy,  wedded  to  his  own 
opinions,  and  better  fitted  to  support  them  by  scholarly  argument 
than  any  other  in  Scotland,  Melville  in  1575,  as  a  member  of  the 
General  Assembly,  and  a  member  of  the  committee  which  met 
Morton's  commissioners,  "  stirred  up  John  Drury  ...  to  propound 
a  question  touching  the  lawfulness  of  the  episcopal  function,  and 
the  authority  of  chapters  in  their  election."  ^^  Melville  advanced 
the  usual  arguments  about  the  episcopos  and  the  presbyter.  The 
chief  result  of  the  discussion  was  to  allow  for  the  present  the  name, 
and  to  curtail  the  authority,  of  bishops,  who  must  each  take  charge 
of  a  particular  "flock"  and  kirk  within  their  dioceses.  This  Boyd, 
Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  declined  to  do.  There  being  a  vacancy  at 
St  Andrews,  Morton  had  Patrick  Adamson,  a  man  of  some  learning, 
and  of  an  unhappy  future,  elected  :  the  Assembly  found  that  he 
refused  their  conditions,  and  meanwhile  suspended  him.  Matters 
remained  unsettled  till  the  Assembly  at  Dundee  (July  1580),  for 
new  troubles  were  vexing  the  State. 

It  is  now  necessary  to  glance  back  at  the  secular  affairs  since 
1574.  They  are  of  an  incidental  sort,  with  little  bearing  on  the 
main  tendency  of  things.  Killigrew  in  1574-75  made  no  speed  in 
"the  great  matter"  of  handing  over  Cecil's  "bosom-serpent,"  the 
Queen  of  Scots,  to  execution  in  her  own  country.  Elizabeth  was 
coquetting  with  the  Alencon  marriage  :  her  attention  was  distracted 
by  the  death  of  Charles  IX.,  and  in  April  1575  Walsingham  feared 
that  Morton,  neglected  by  England,  was  favouring  the  Hamiltons 
and  looking  towards  France.-''  Killigrew  and  Davison,  the  secre- 
tary, later  so  unhappily  connected  with  the  execution  of  Mary,  were 
on  their  way  to  Scotland  when  the  Border  peace  was  broken  on 
July  7  by  the  raid  of  the  Reidswire.^-'- 

At  a  Warden  court,  Sir  John  Forster  and  Sir  John  Carmichael 
presiding,  a  brawl  arose  among  their  followers  ;  the  Scots  had  the 
worse,  but  were  reinforced  from  Jedburgh  ;  Sir  John  Heron  was 
slain,  and  the  English  Warden,  with  many  gentlemen  and  some  300 
followers,  was  captured.  Sir  John  Forster  behaved  with  tact  and 
good  sense,  refusing  to  make  a  national  quarrel  out  of  a  chance 
onset,  but  Elizabeth  ordered  Morton  to  meet  Huntingdon  in  Eng- 
land. This  Morton  refused  to  do,  and  Elizabeth  compromised  for 
a  meeting  at  the  "  Bond  Rode "  on  the  frontier,  near  Berwick. -- 
Huntingdon,  like  Foster,  was  pacific,  and  sensible.^^  The  affair,  he 
said,  was  but  "a  brauble."     Nobody  was  certain  whether  the  Jed- 

voL.   11.  R 


258  STRONG   RULE   OF   MORTON. 

burgh  people  first  called  "  A  Jeddart !  a  Jeddart !  "  or  whether  the 
Tynedale  men  began  to  shout  and  shoot.  Elizabeth's  fiery  mes- 
sages were  not  delivered  to  Morton,  who  patched  the  quarrel  up 
with  Huntingdon  on  August  16-19. 

Killigrew  had  entered  on  his  embassy,  and  sent  in  a  long  report 
of  Scottish  affairs.^*  There  was  a  kind  of  renewal  of  the  king's  and 
queen's  parties.  The  laird  of  Lochleven,  William  Douglas,  who 
sold  the  Earl  of  Northumberland,  had  laid  an  ambush  for  the 
Hamiltons,  to  avenge  Murray  on  Bothwellhaugh ;  and  Arbroath, 
son  of  Chatelherault,  was  in  fear  of  his  own  responsibility  for 
Murray's  murder.  He  therefore  aimed  at  marrying  the  widow  of 
Buccleuch,  a  sister  of  Morton's  nephew,  the  Earl  of  Angus,  and  at 
thus  allying  the  Hamiltons  with  the  Regent.  This  placed  Argyll 
and  Atholl,  Buchan  and  Mar,  in  opposition  to  Morton  and  the 
Hamiltons,  while  old  Chatelherault  died,  after  a  long  and  varied 
career  of  good-humoured  and  fickle  incapacity.  Arran  was  still 
confined  in  Draffen  Castle  as  a  lunatic ;  meanwhile  Morton  tem- 
porised as  to  the  Hamilton-Angus  marriage.  Sir  James  Balfour 
was  still  tolerated  by  Morton,  after  his  countless  treacheries,  and 
was  used  when  the  Regent  "  would  contrary  the  ministers  "  or  the 
citizens  of  Edinburgh.  Morton,  though  not  popular,  was  fearless, 
and  went  shooting  or  enjoying  the  contemplative  recreation  of 
angling  almost  unattended.  The  Esk  at  Dalkeith  was  not  yet 
poisoned,  and  the  Regent  must  have  found  it  an  ideal  stream  for 
trout  and  sea-trout.  Because  he  "  contraried "  the  burgesses, 
Morton,  naturally,  was  popular  with  the  working  classes,  whom 
Killigrew  reckoned  much  more  important.  Morton's  enemies  ad- 
mitted that  "  they  could  not  find  his  like "  as  a  ruler.  Bothwell, 
in  Denmark,  was  now  reported  to  be  "  greatly  swollen  "  and  near 
his  death.  He  had  still  a  stroke  at  Morton  in  him,  if  his  dying 
confession  be  authentic,  and,  if  not,  it  was  still  useful.  The  country 
was  peaceful  and  prosperous,  and  it  is  almost  a  comfort  to  learn 
that,  in  days  when  river-pollution  was  unknown,  and  Tweed  poachers 
less  skilled  than  in  our  day,  "  the  fishing  of  salmon  is  this  year 
utterly  failed  in  Scotland,  and  at  Berwick  also."  Corn  was  never 
so  plentiful,  so  the  want  of  rain  cannot  have  been  the  cause  of  this 
dispensation,  though  a  dry  autumn  may  have  prevented  fish  from 
running  up.  Our  comfort  lies  in  thinking  that,  as  bad  fishing 
seasons  of  old  were  followed  by  good,  so  it  may  be  again,  "who 
live  to  see  it." 


HE   INCLINES   TO   MARY   (1576-77).  259 

Killigrew  found  Morton  apparently  strong  and  prosperous.  But 
the  aftair  of  the  Hamilton  marriage  already  indicated  the  chance  of 
an  Argyll  and  Atholl  opposition.  Spottiswoode  also  tells  us  that 
the  Regent's  cruelties  were  disliked.  One  of  the  queen's  Maries, 
Mary  Livingstone,  had  married  John  Semple  of  Beltrees.  Morton 
tried  to  wring  from  him  some  lands  given  by  Mary  to  his  wife,  and 
Semple  had  said  something  perilous.  It  was  suspected  that  the 
Hamiltons  had  instigated  him  and  his  nephew,  Whitford  of  Milnton, 
to  shoot  Morton.  Threatened  with  torture,  Semple,  not  a  brave 
man,  confessed  ;  but  Milnton,  even  under  torture,  denied  the  charge, 
and  had  public  opinion  on  his  side.^^  Whatever  truth  there  may 
be  in  this  anecdote,  we  observe  after  the  Reformation  the  increased 
employment  of  torture  to  extract  evidence.  In  the  earlier  part  of 
Scottish  history  we  seldom  hear  of  this  cruel  and  detestable  practice, 
at  least  as  exercised  on  gentlemen. 

We  now  find  Morton  conscious  that  his  position  was  imperilled. 
As  early  as  November  1574  he  was  reported  by  the  Spanish  Am- 
bassador to  intend  to  marry  Queen  Mary.^^  He  now  looked  in  the 
same  direction.  On  April  15,  1577,  Lord  Ogilvy  wrote  to  Arch- 
bishop Beaton,  Mary's  ambassador  in  France,  a  letter  unknown 
to  Mr  Tytler  and  earlier  historians.  It  contained  matter  already 
touched  on  in  July  1576  by  Beaton  of  Balfour.  Morton,  in  short, 
was  anxious  to  deal  with,  or  pretended  to  be  anxious  to  deal  with, 
Mary  and  France.  When  James  should  come  to  power  Morton  had 
reason  for  anxiety.  He  knew  what  befell  the  Boyds  when  the  young 
James  III.  came  to  his  own.  He  knew  that  his  enemies  would 
put  at  him,  and  use  as  their  instrument  his  connection  with 
Darnley's  murder.  Sir  James  Balfour,  with  Beaton,  was  intriguing 
for  the  queen,  and  as  to  Darnley's  murder,  Balfour  knew  everything. 
"  Ane  schamful  bruit "  as  to  Morton's  guilt  prevailed  among  the 
populace.  Therefore  Morton  in  1577  spoke  "reverently"  of  Mary, 
desiring  her  restoration,  if  James  died.  He  would  rather  serve 
her  and  her  race  than  any  of  the  world,  as  God  was  his  judge. 
Granted  an  amnesty,  he  would  work  for  a  restoration  of  the  queen. 
Sir  James  Balfour  was  as  friendly  as  Morton.  Both  only  wanted 
assurances  from  Mary.  The  queen  put  no  more  confidence  in 
Morton's  professions  than  did  her  descendant,  the  King  over  the 
Water,  in  those  of  Robert  Walpole  when  that  Minister's  power 
decayed.  She  feared  a  trap.  But  the  advances  of  Morton  prove 
that  he  knew  the  dangers  of  his  position.-'' 


26o  ARGYLL  WORKS   AGAINST   MORTON   (1578). 

We  have  already  seen  indications  of  a  coalition  between  Atholl, 
Argyll,  and  Mar  against  the  Regent,  to  whom  Argyll  was  hostile 
because  of  the  forced  surrender  of  Mary's  jewels.  Atholl,  too, 
could  not  well  be  content,  as  he  was  threatened  with  excommuni- 
cation for  idolatry.  Mar,  a  very  young  peer,  had  not  been  in- 
trusted with  the  guardianship  of  James,  who  was  in  the  hands  of 
his  father's  brother,  Alexander  Erskine.  But  for  a  while  Argyll  and 
Atholl  were  quarrelling,  and  attacking  each  other's  countries, 
Argyll  about  the  same  time  being  at  feud  with  Clan  Donald.  In 
this  affair  Argyll  incurred  Morton's  displeasure,  so  he  and  Atholl 
again  drew  together."^  Alexander  Erskine  also  began  to  distrust 
Morton's  intentions  as  to  seizing  James.  He  induced  Argyll  and 
Atholl  to  visit  him  at  Stirling,  where  Argyll  appealed  directly  to  the 
boy  king  against  the  tyranny  of  Morton,  and  asked  for  an  assembly 
of  the  nobles.  Atholl  urged  the  same  advice  :  troubles  were  brew- 
ing, and  Elizabeth,  through  Bowes  and  Randolph,  attempted  to 
reconcile  all  parties  (January  30,  1578).  In  March  Lady  Lennox, 
the  mother  of  Darnley,  died  in  England,  to  all  appearance  recon- 
ciled with  Mary,  and  a  believer  in  her  innocence.  To  EHzabeth 
Lady  Lennox  concealed  this  change  of  mind,  if  a  change  there 
was,  but  that  she  would  have  done  in  any  case.  We  are  left  to 
conjecture  as  to  whether  the  reconciliation  was  sincere,  or  whether 
Lady  Lennox  feigned  cordiality  for  the  sake  of  advantages  to  be 
drawn  from  Mary.^  In  any  case,  she  had  given  ISIary  written  assur- 
ances of  belief  in  her  innocence.  The  death  of  this  lady  opened 
the  path  for  Stewart  d'Aubigny  in  France,  whom  James  later  created 
Duke  of  Lennox.  Meanwhile,  in  England,  her  granddaughter,  Ara- 
bella Stewart,  child  of  Charles,  younger  brother  of  Darnley,  was  to 
inherit  the  sorrows  of  the  line.  The  Lennox  estates  in  England 
remained  for  many  years  the  desire  of  James's  heart. 

On  March  4,  1578,  the  intrigues  of  the  nobles  against  Morton 
came  to  a  head.  They  had  of  their  party  the  king's  tutor,  George 
Buchanan,  who  had  quarrelled  with  Morton,  says  Sir  James  Mel- 
ville, about  a  favourite  horse,  which  the  Regent  seized.  On  INIarch 
4,  Argyll  at  Stirling,  backed  no  doubt  by  Buchanan,  requested 
James  to  call  a  convention  of  nobles.  Alexander  Erskine,  who 
held  Stirling  Castle,  was  of  the  same  mind,  with  Atholl,  Montrose, 
Livingstone,  Lindsay,  Ruthven,  Ogilvy,  the  Chancellor  (Glamis), 
the  comptroller  (Tullibardine),  and  the  secretary,  the  lay  Abbot  of 
Dunfermline.       Morton   sent   Angus,    Herries,    and    Ruthven :    he 


FALL  AND   RECOVERY  OF   MORTON.  261 

announced  his  readiness  to  resign  the  Regency.  His  offer  was 
accepted,  he  received  a  discharge,  and  resigned  the  Castle  of 
Edinburgh,  where  a  skirmish  occurred.  On  the  same  day  Glamis, 
at  Stirling,  was  shot  in  a  scuffle  between  his  followers  and  those  of 
Crawford.  Alexander  Erskine  was  to  be  keeper  of  Edinburgh 
Castle,  held  for  James  in  the  meantime  by  Drumquhassel  and 
Seton  of  Touch.  AthoU  succeeded  Glamis  as  Chancellor.  The 
death  of  Huntly  (sudden,  and  followed  by  hauntings  of  his  castle, 
described  by  Knox's  secretary)  removed  another  of  the  chief  con- 
spirators against  Darnley.  Bothwell,  Lethington,  Argyll,  were  also 
dead,  but  vengeance  still  hung  over  Morton.  He  submitted  to  his 
fall  with  singular  patience  :  he  had  his  plan  in  reserve,  and  Ran- 
dolph knew  it.  A  council  of  nobles,  the  successful  revolutionists, 
was  appointed  for  James ;  and  a  Parliament  proclaimed  for 
July  lo.^*' 

Things  were  not  to  move  peacefully  :  "  all  the  devils  in  hell  are 
stirring,"  wrote  Randolph,  to  whom,  as  to  Elizabeth,  a  Scotland 
qi>iet  under  Morton's  heel  was  an  ideal  Scotland.  From  her  English 
prison  Mary  was  making  a  new  party  in  Scotland.  On  April  26, 
1578,  the  young  Earl  of  Mar,  jealous  of  his  uncle,  James's  Gover- 
nor, Alexander  Erskine,  came  with  armed  men  into  Stirling  Castle. 
Blows  were  dealt  in  the  early  morning,  and  Erskine's  son  was 
crushed  to  death  in  the  mellay,  where  his  father  plied  a  halbert. 
Argyll  pacified  the  tumult,  James  endured  the  first  of  his  many 
terrors  in  his  own  palace,  Alexander  Erskine  fell  ill  from  grief  and 
chagrin,  and  young  Mar  was  master  of  Stirling  Castle  and  of  James, 
being  backed  by  the  laird  of  Lochleven,  Angus,  and  the  secret 
influence  of  Morton.  In  short,  it  was  a  Douglas  coup  d'etat  of  the 
old  kind. 

A  compromise  was  effected.  Mar  was  retained  in  his  father's 
office  of  governor  of  James  and  commander  of  Stirling  Castle,  and 
James  really  seems  to  have  liked  and  trusted  all  the  Erskines. 
Argyll,  Atholl,  and  Morton  met  at  the  ex-Regent's  house  of  Dalkeith, 
where  they  dined  and  slept.  But  at  breakfast  Morton  was  missing : 
he  had  ridden  secretly  to  Stirling,  joined  Mar,  and  was  as  powerful 
as  ever  (May  28,  1578).  On  June  18  Morton  at  Stirling  secured 
the  appointment  of  a  new  Council,  himself  holding  the  foremost 
place.  He  desired  the  Parliament  of  July  to  be  held  at  Stirling  ;  his 
adversaries  declared  for  Edinburgh,  and  sent  Lindsay  and  Ruthven 
to  Stirling  to  protest  against  the  Parliament  held  there.     There  were 


262  MARYS   NEW   INTRIGUE   (1578). 

disturbances  ;  the  anti-Mortonites  raised  the  townsfolk  of  Edinburgh. 
In  brief,  the  two  hostile  parties  armed,  and  the  anti-Morton  faction 
advanced  with  a  large  army,  Lowland  and  Highland,  to  Falkirk.  But 
Bowes,  Elizabeth's  ambassador,  negotiated  a  peace,  while  Morton's 
foes  were  arrayed  at  Bannockburn.  A  reconciliation  was  made  ; 
Argyll,  Lindsay,  and  Ruthven  were  placed  on  the  Privy  Council, 
and  after  August  13  the  hostile  forces  dispersed,  and  at  the  end 
of  October  a  friendly  dinner  left  the  disputants  in  good  humour. ^^ 

In  these  turbid  waters  Mary  and  Lesley,  who  was  now  abroad, 
had  been  fishing,  and  intriguing  with  the  Guises.  Her  trust  was 
that,  by  AthoU's  aid,  the  Guises  might  secure  the  person  of  her  son, 
whereas  she  suspected  Morton  of  meaning  to  intrust  him  to  Eliz- 
abeth. She  had  hopes  from  the  Hamiltons,  and,  strangely,  from 
Drumquhassel,  who,  as  a  retainer  of  Lennox,  had  in  1567-70  been 
her  bitter  enemy.  Now  she  dreamed  that  he  might  put  Dumbarton 
again  into  the  hands  of  her  friends.  She  was  especially  anxious 
that  Stewart  d'Aubigny,  a  nephew  of  the  late  Regent  Lennox, 
brought  up  in  France,  should  not  be  employed  by  the  Guises  in 
the  scheme  of  carrying  James  off  to  France.  She  did  not  trust 
him,  and  to  employ  him  would  be  to  alienate  the  faction  of  Arabella 
Stewart,  Darnley's  niece.  She  remembered  that  d'Aubigny's  uncle, 
Lennox  (Darnley's  father),  had  been  sent  from  France  when  she 
herself  was  a  baby,  and  had  revolted  to  England,  carrying  off  the 
French  gold  intended  for  the  party  of  Cardinal  Beaton.  Drum- 
quhassel was  to  manage  all  the  intrigue  as  to  handing  over  James 
to  the  Guises.  Mary  was  sending  a  symbolic  token,  in  enamelled 
gold,  to  James,  by  the  emissary  of  the  Guises,  who  must  not  be 
d'Aubigny,  and  must  deal  with  Drumquhassel  and  Alexander  Erskine. 
She  apparently  regarded  Atholl  and  Argyll  as  at  her  obedience,  her 
bitterest  hatred  being  reserved  for  Morton.  All  this  Mary  wrote  to 
her  ambassador  in  France,  Archbishop  Beaton,  from  Chatsworth,  on 
September  15,  1578.^^ 

Dreams,  hopes,  jewelled  tokens,  helpless  intrigues  of  exiles  and 
captives  !  The  letters  of  Mary,  like  the  letters  of  James  VIII.  and 
Prince  Charles,  revolve  in  the  same  sad  circle  of  impossible  desires 
and  frustrated  designs.  For  years,  in  one  form  or  other,  Mary  and 
her  foreign  and  Catholic  allies  or  well-wishers  were  to  strain  to  win 
James  to  the  French  alliance  and  the  Catholic  faith.  For  this  was 
blood  to  be  shed,  against  this  were  myriads  of  sermons  to  be 
preached,  till  the  young  king,  often  a  prisoner,  always  insulted  by 


DEATH   OF   ATHOLL   (1579).  263 

the  preachers,  took  that  prelatical  and  despotic  bent  which  was  the 
ruin  of  his  son  and  of  his  House,  and  the  cause  of  the  civil  war. 
The  letters  of  Mary  and  of  Lesley  were  interrupted  and  deciphered. 
Elizabeth  and  Cecil  always  knew  exactly  the  budding  and  blossoming 
times  of  the  plots,  and  they  held  by  Morton  as  their  best  security. 
Their  confidence  in  Morton  was  not  misplaced.  Probably  the  most 
dangerous  of  his  opponents  was  the  Earl  of  AthoU.  He  had  taken 
no  part  in,  and  had  no  knowledge  of,  the  conspiracy  to  murder 
Darnley,  which,  save  for  Huntly,  was  an  entirely  Protestant  arrange- 
ment, whereas  AthoU  was  a  Catholic.  (While  remembering  this,  we 
must  not  forget  that  the  Catholic  party  wanted  the  lives  of  Murray, 
Argyll,  Lethington,  and  Morton.) 

On  November  8,  1578,  Bruce,  a  treacherous  agent  of  Archbishop 
Beaton,  describes  Atholl  as  most  loyal  to  Mary,  and  as  keeping 
Argyll  constant  to  her  cause.  But  Lady  Argyll  appears  to  have 
been  fickle.  Bruce  represents  her  as  encouraging  James  in  the  love 
of  his  imprisoned  mother ;  but  James  "  is  already  very  arrogant,  and 
a  great  dissembler,  and  likely  to  resemble  his  father  (Darnley)  and 
grandfather  (Lennox)  in  cruelty  and  want  of  judgment."  Lady 
Argyll's  own  loyalty  to  Mary  was  suspected.^^  Atholl  being  thus 
the  mainspring  of  Mary's  plans,  died  suddenly  (April  25,  1579)  after 
a  banquet  given  by  Morton  at  Stirling  to  unite  the  assembled  nobles. 
Accusations  of  poison  always  were  bandied  after  a  "  natural  "  death  : 
in  Atholl's  case  there  seem  to  have  been  some  grounds  for  suspi- 
cion, his  death  being  so  extremely  opportune  for  Morton.  One 
Provend,  or  "  Weirdy,"  was  said  to  have  bought  the  poison,  and  one 
Jerdan  to  have  administered  it.  Weirdy  fled  to  France.^*  On  the 
other  hand,  dangerous  surfeits  after  political  dinners  were  common 
enough.  In  August  1580  both  Morton  and  Lennox  were  "grievously 
troubled  with  the  flux  by  surfeit  lately  taken  at  the  Lord  Lindsay's 
house."  Atholl  may  have  died  of  haggis,  friar's  partens,  sheep-head, 
and  cockie-leekie.'^'^ 

The  new  Earl  of  Atholl,  aged  eighteen,  and  Montrose  called  for 
justice ;  but  Morton  and  Angus,  seizing  the  occasion  of  Atholl's 
death,  marched  against  the  Hamiltons  (Lord  Claude  and  the  Lord 
of  Arbroath),  took  Hamilton  Castle,  and  hanged  the  garrison.  The 
Pacification  of  Perth,  as  we  saw  (February  1573),  left  the  charge  of 
Darnley's  murder  still  hanging  over  the  Hamiltons.  Now  "  that 
two-handed  engine "  was  dragged  out  to  smite  Morton's  foes  :  a 
little  while,  and  it  smote  himself.     The  Lochleven   Douglas,  Mar, 


264  THE   HAMILTONS   EXILED. 

and  Buchan  were  avenging  the  Regent  Murray,  and  would  gladly 
have  extirpated  all  Hamiltons.  They  took  Draffen  Castle,  but  Lord 
Claude  and  Arbroath  had  fled  the  country.  The  people  about 
James  had  inflamed  his  anger  against  the  Hamiltons,  a  thing  easy 
to  do,  as  they  were  his  nearest  heirs.  Captain  Arrington,  whom 
Elizabeth  sent  to  Stirling,  "  could  not  find  in  the  king  other  than 
fervent  hatred  against  them,  and  as  it  were  a  fear  he  had  of  them 
...  to  be  dangerous  to  his  person."  George  Buchanan  had  taught 
him  that  the  Hamiltons,  the  Archbishop,  and  Lord  Claude  were 
the  murderers  of  his  father,  as  the  House  certainly  was  guilty  of 
Murray's  death,  and  Lord  Claude  was  implicated  in  Lennox's 
destruction.  A  boy  of  thirteen  is  apt  to  dread  men  whom  he 
believes  to  have  killed  his  grandfather,  uncle,  and  father.  Eliz- 
abeth laboured  and  entreated  for  Lord  Claude  and  Arbroath,  but 
her  remonstrances  were  not  well  received.  With  the  Hamiltons 
was  banished  Sir  James  Balfour,  who  instantly  began  a  corres- 
pondence with  Mary  through  Archbishop  Beaton,  and  presently 
had  the  satisfaction  of  bringing  Morton   to  the  block. 

The  ecclesiastical  events  of  the  summer  of  1579  were  important, 
but  it  seems  better  to  introduce  an  account  of  them  later,  and  at 
present  to  follow  the  course  of  political  intrigue.  In  INIay  Mary  was 
anxious  to  communicate  with  her  son,  and  hoped  that  Archbishop 
Beaton  would  be  allowed  to  visit  him  (May  31).^^  On  June  7 
she  wrote  to  Robert  Bowes,  Elizabeth's  ambassador  in  Scotland, 
whose  dry  letters  make  us  regret  the  lively  Randolph.  She 
announced  the  arrival  of  her  secretary,  Claude  Nau,  in  Edinburgh. 
Elizabeth  had  given  permission  for  his  visit ;  but  his  packet  of 
letters  and  the  symbolic  jewel  for  James  were  not  accepted,  because 
Mary  could  not  bring  herself  to  address  her  son  as  king.  Thus  it 
never  was  possible  to  bring  about  an  understanding  between  Mary 
and  James.  Nau  and  others  assured  Mary  that  she  was  dear  to 
her  son,  though  "the  poor  child  does  not  show  it  in  the  captivity 
he  is,  fearing  therethrough,  as  there  is  great  appearance,  the  hazard 
of  his  life"  (July  4).  Morton  alone  prevented  the  Council  from 
permitting  James  to  receive  Nau's  parcel. 

In  September  Esme  Stuart  d'Aubigny  landed  in  Scotland.  He 
was  the  son  of  Lennox's  brother,  Darnley's  uncle,  John ;  was  a 
man  accomplished,  attractive,  false,  and  instantly  became  a  great 
favourite  of  James.  He  came  to  Stirling  on  September  i  5,  and  at 
once  grew  intimate  with   the  captain  of  the  guard,  James  Stewart, 


ARRIVAL   OF   STEWART   D'AUBIGNY.  265 

a  son  of  Lord  Ochiltree,  and  brother-in-law  of  John  Knox,  a  brave 
adventurer,  soon  to  be  the  most  powerful  man  in  Scotland.  On 
September  30  James  at  last  visited  Edinburgh  :  "  he  was  ane 
great  delyt  to  the  beholderis,"  whose  trade  had  long  suffered  from 
the  absence  of  the  Court.^'  James  was  welcomed  in  various  ways 
by  his  loyal  lieges,  and  attended  a  Parliament  held  on  November 
II  and  12.  Here  the  Hamiltons,  Lord  Claude  and  the  Lord  of 
Arbroath,  were  forfeited,  and  that  in  despite  of  Elizabeth's  wishes 
conveyed  through  Captain  Arrington.  On  October  20  the  captain 
had  informed  Cecil  that  d'Aubigny  would  probably  receive  the 
earldom  of  Lennox,  with  grants  out  of  the  lands  of  the  ruined 
Hamiltons.  The  prophecy  was  fulfilled ;  d'Aubigny,  now  to  be 
known  as  Lennox,  obtained  the  rich  Priory  of  Arbroath,  and  the 
custody  of  Dumbarton  Castle,  the  old  gate  of  France  into  Scotland. 
The  captaincy  nominally  remained  in  the  hands  of  Drumquhassel, 
once  the  foe,  now  the  friend,  of  Mary.  Naturally  the  preachers 
were  alarmed, — "  they  cried  out  continually  against  atheists  and 
papists,  that  would  turn  to  his  majesty's  ruin,  and  the  hurt  of 
the  trew  professors."  -^^ 

The  professors  were  in  an  undesirable  position.  They  had  to 
choose  between  Lennox,  presumed  to  be  an  atheist  or  a  papist,  and 
Morton,  whose  private  and  public  character  gave  opportunities  to 
the  ungodly.  At  that  time  the  Press  was  beginning  to  exist  in  the 
shape  of  pamphlets,  and  of  "  jjlacards,"  a  kind  of  leading  articles, 
set  up  in  public  places.  Calderwood,  a  rather  soured  divine,  but 
an  astonishingly  industrious  and  learned  historian,  who  lived  into  the 
age  of  Charles  I.,  has  preserved  for  us  one  of  these  placards  directed 
against  Morton,  and  fixed  on  the  cross  of  Edinburgh.  The  public 
was  invited  to  consider  whether  Morton  "  had  ever,  or  yet  hath,  any 
regard  to  the  glory  of  God,"  and  history  must  acknowledge  that  this 
was  not  his  ruling  motive.  It  was  true,  the  placard  admitted,  that 
Morton  had  ruined  the  Hamiltons,  a  thing  pious  in  itself,  but  it 
was  done  for  private  reasons ;  on  the  other  hand,  he  had  spared 
Buccleuch,  who  was  with  the  Hamiltons  at  the  death  of  the  Regent 
Lennox,  and  had  looked  through  his  fingers  at  Ferniehirst,  suspected 
of  being  art  and  part  in  Darnley's  murder.  The  country,  said  the 
journalist,  "  ought  first  to  pursue  the  king's  cruel  murder  against 
the  Earl  of  Morton."  Sir  James  Balfour,  if  he  had  been  permitted, 
would  have  showed  the  band  for  Darnley's  death,  "as  he  will  do 
yet,  God  willing,  when  time  and  place  may  serve." 


266  INTRIGUES   OF   d'AUBIGNY   (l  579-1  580). 

With  all  his  faults,  Morton  was  now,  as  a  sound  anti-papist,  the 
darling  of  the  Kirk  which  he  had  robbed.  It  was  therefore  necessary 
that  Lennox  should  conciliate  the  Kirk.  He  professed  to  bring  an 
open  mind  to  the  consideration  of  their  tenets.  His  "  little  master," 
young  James,  w'as  already  a  theologian,  and  it  was  a  touching  sight 
to  see  the  young  Josiah  striving  to  win  his  elder  kinsman  from  Baal 
and  the  Scarlet  Woman.  He  lent  Lennox  books  of  controversy,  and 
accompanied  him  to  the  sermons.  On  April  11,  1580,  Arrington 
reported  to  Bowes  a  suspected  plot  of  Morton's  to  seize  the  king  at 
Stirling.  On  the  i6th  Bowes  wrote  to  Walsingham  with  the  news  of 
a  counterplot  of  Lennox  and  Argyll  to  carry  James  to  Dumbarton, 
whence  he  might  easily  be  taken  to  France.  Thence  Sir  James 
Balfour  was  expected  to  arrive,  with  the  eternal  band  that  was  to  ruin 
Morton — a  paper  that  either  did  no  longer  exist  or  was  deemed  by 
Balfour  too  dangerous  to  produce.  Elizabeth  sent  Bowes  to  under- 
mine Lennox  :  she  was  ready  even  to  pay  pensions  to  the  lords — the 
only  really  efficacious  argument. ^^  Bowes  on  his  arrival  found  that 
one  class  of  men  were  not  venal,  the  ministers.  A  single  "reader"  in 
James's  household  took  a  present,  the  tutor,  Mr  Peter  Young,  and 
the  rest  refused  money.  This  is  a  crucial  proof  that  the  Reforma- 
tion, which  only  added  hypocrisy  to  the  vices  of  the  nobles,  was 
really  "  working  for  righteousness."  Of  yore  one  man,  Buccleuch, 
had  spurned  with  curses  the  offers  of  Henry  VHL  ;  now  the  real 
leaders  of  the  people,  the  preachers,  were  of  like  mind.'*'' 

The  mission  of  Bowes  opened  with  intercession  for  the  banished 
Hamiltons.  Lord  Claude  had  defended  himself  against  the  various 
charges  of  murder  in  a  letter  to  Elizabeth  (January  29,  1580).*^ 
Bowes  touched  on  a  scheme  of  Lennox's  for  placing  near  the  king 
George  Douglas,  who  organised  Mary's  escape  from  Lochleven,  and 
was  her  trusted  servant.  There  had  also  been  a  scheme  to  imprison 
Morton,  and  use  against  him  his  robbery  of  the  Kirk.  The  revolu- 
tion of  the  Court  was  to  have  been  effected  at  Doune  Castle,  and 
James  himself  told  Bowes  some  of  the  details.  He  feared  the 
affair  would  end  in  a  fight,  and  returned  to  Stirling.  This  was  the 
intrigue  at  which  Mary  had  been  working  :  it  was  defeated,  but  James 
obviously  disliked  Morton. 

It  was  more  important  that  Lennox,  and  his  retainer  Henry  Ker, 
"are  now  so  earnest  Protestants  as  they  begin  to  creep  into  credit 
even  with  the  ministers  at  Edinburgh,  that  have  written  in  their 
commendations  to  the  king's  ministers"  (May  10,  i58o).'*2      If  the 


D'AUBIGNY   (LENNOX)   SECURES   DUMBARTON,  267 

godly  accepted  Lennox,  Morton  would  indeed  be  in  danger.  James, 
in  July,  happened  to  be  with  Morton  and  Lennox  in  the  New 
Inn,  or  Novum  Hospitium,  of  St  Andrews.  As  they  looked  from  the 
gallery  at  a  pageant,  a  lunatic  seaman.  Skipper  Lindsay,  began  an 
amateur  sermon  in  the  open  air.  Morton  was  standing  "gnapping 
upon  his  staff,"  when  the  crazed  fellow  "  warned  the  earl  not  obscurely 
that  his  judgment  was  drawing  near,  and  his  doom  in  dressing."  ^ 
But  Morton,  we  shall  see,  was  then  in  treaty  with  Lennox. 

When  the  General  Assembly  met  at  Dundee  in  mid-July,  Lennox 
wrote  to  inform  the  Brethren  that  he  had  now  "  been  called  to  a 
knowledge  of  his  salvation,"  and  had  already  "  made  open  declara- 
tion of  his  calling  "  in  kirk  at  Edinburgh,  and  at  Stirling.  Mr  Henry 
Ker  had  also  "  long  lain  in  blindness,"  but  now  had  seen  a  great 
light.  Both  gentlemen  earnestly  desired  the  services  of  a  Huguenot 
preacher  to  confirm  them  in  the  truth.^-*  A  difficulty  with  Lennox 
was  to  get  Dumbarton  Castle  into  his  own  hands,  for  Bowes  had  now 
bought  Drumquhassel,  the  actual  captain  of  the  place,  with  a  bribe.*^ 
Morton,  too,  was  won  over  to  execute  a  plot  to  get  possession  of 
James,  as  usual,  in  Elizabeth's  interest,  if  she  would  plainly  state 
her  terms.**^  In  short,  through  the  summer  of  1580  there  was  an 
English  conspiracy  flattered  by  Elizabeth,  and  a  Marian  conspiracy 
worked  by  Lennox,  Archbishop  Beaton,  and  Lesley,  who  was  hang- 
ing about  Dieppe  in  readiness  to  return.  James  met  with  an  awk- 
ward accident  in  July  :  his  horse  fell  on  him,  his  attendants  drew 
their  swords  to  kill  the  beast,  but  both  steed  and  monarch  escaped 
unhurt.'*'  In  politics  Morton  was  unable  to  move.  Elizabeth 
would  not  show  her  hand,  and  Lennox  and  he  were  making 
overtures  for  amity,  as  Archibald  Douglas,  employed  as  go-between, 
reported  to  Bowes,  This  private  negotiation  prevented  violent 
doings  at  St  Andrews  at  the  time  when  Skipper  Lindsay  prophe- 
sied to  Morton.'^  A  surfeit  from  overfeeding,  which  attacked 
both  Lennox  and  Morton,  delayed,  sine  die,  their  reconciliation. 

The  chief  aim  of  Lennox,  and  of  the  Marian  conspirators,  had 
been  to  convey  Dumbarton  Castle  into  Lennox's  own  hands.  This 
seemed  to  have  been  secured  when  Drumquhassel,  a  Lennoxian, 
got  the  captaincy.  But  Bowes,  as  we  saw,  had  purchased  Drum- 
quhassel. Lennox  was  not  defeated.  On  August  25  he  caused 
the  gates  of  Edinburgh  to  be  closed,  netted  Drumquhassel,  who  was 
in  the  town,  excluded  Morton,  who  lay  at  Dalkeith,  and  compelled 
Drumquhassel  to  give  up  the  keys.*^     Bowes  sent  intelligence  to 


268  ELIZABETH   DESERTS   MORTON   (1580). 

Walsingham,  who  on  August  31  commissioned  him,  first  to  remon- 
strate strongly  with  James,  seeing  that  Lennox  was  "  a  professed 
enemy  of  the  Gospel,"  and  then,  if  remonstrance  failed,  to  try 
murder.  Elizabeth  bade  him  conspire  with  Morton  to  "  lay  violent 
hands  on  the  said  "  enemy  of  the  Gospel.^''  Elizabeth  would  give 
all  assistance.  This  was  on  August  31  ;  on  September  i  Elizabeth 
again  sent  contradictory  injunctions.  Force  was  not  to  be  used, 
no  assistance  was  to  be  promised  till  further  notice.  Walsingham 
deplored  "our  unthankfulness  towards  God,"  in  thus  withdrawing 
from  a  work  so  acceptable  as  murder.  Godliness  has  its  remorses.^^ 
Bowes  was  now  merely  to  threaten  James  with  loss  of  the  heirship 
of  England,  and  to  accuse  Lennox  before  the  Council,  in  the 
absence  of  the  accused,  that  being,  as  in  Mary's  own  case, 
Elizabeth's  idea  of  justice.  It  was  not  that  of  the  Council.  Bowes 
continued  to  plot,  Morton  to  waver.  The  clergy  denounced 
"  Papists  with  great  ruffs  and  wide  bellies,"  Lennox  and  his  com- 
pany. Ruthven,  with  Robert  Melville  and  Lethington's  brother, 
John  Maitland  (who  probably  represented  Lethington  on  the  scene 
of  Darnley's  murder),  were  won  over  to  Lennox's  faction.  Both 
Morton  and  Lennox  rebuked  the  preachers,  Morton  speaking 
severely  of  the  turbulent  John  Durie.  By  a  letter  of  October  7 
Bowes  was  recalled,  to  the  consternation  of  Morton :  Elizabeth 
had  deserted  him.  A  guard  of  thirty  gentlemen  was  appointed 
for  the  king,  including  Mary's  friend,  George  Douglas,  and  Captain 
James  Stewart  of  Ochiltree,  brother-in-law  of  Knox,  a  soldier  of 
fortune  who  had  been  in  France,  Sweden,  and  Russia,  and  was 
to  become  practical  Governor  of  Scotland.^'^ 

The  recall  of  Bowes  was  Morton's  death-warrant.  His  intrigues 
with  Bowes,  and  the  plot  to  kill  Lennox  (which  Bowes  had  kept 
working  at),  were  probably  known.  A  man  who  dealt,  as  Morton 
did,  through  Archibald  Douglas,  was  certain  to  be  betrayed.  That 
Archibald  was  the  traitor  may  be  inferred  from  his  character,  and, 
moreover,  from  the  circumstance  that  Morton,  on  the  last  day  of 
his  life,  openly  declared  that  his  cousin  and  retainer,  Archibald, 
had  been  present  at  Darnley's  murder.  He  informed  against  no 
other  man,  dead  or  alive.  Aware  of  Morton's  danger,  Elizabeth  in 
November  instructed  Lord  Hunsdon  to  go  to  James,  threaten  him, 
bribe,  form  a  new  party,  and  rescue  her  accomplice.  She  then 
withdrew  her  instructions,  and  left  the  Earl,  as  was  her  wont,  to  his 
fate.''^ 


ARREST   OF   MORTON   (DEC.    31,    1580).  269 

Morton  was  to  have  been  arrested  on  December  26.  On  that 
day  James,  either  because  "his  better  nature  prevailed"  (as  Mr 
Froude  conjectures)  or  with  the  Judas-hke  dissimulation  which  he 
later  showed  to  Somerset,  went  out  hunting  with  Morton,  and 
treated  him  with  special  kindness.  Lord  Robert  Stewart,  Mary's 
brother,  now  Earl  of  Orkney,  gave  to  Morton,  as  he  had  given  to 
Darnley  in  Kirk-o'-Field,  warning  to  fly.  Morton  would  not  be 
advised.  Perhaps  he  did  not  know  that  throughout  the  year  Sir 
James  Balfour,  in  France,  had  been  entertaining  Mary  with  tales  of 
his  possession  of  the  Darnley  murder-band,  implicating  Morton. 
Mary  had  no  confidence  in  Balfour's  professions,  but  she  kept  him 
in  hand,  and  now  Balfour  had  secretly  landed  in  Scotland,  arriving 
on  December  27.  The  probability  is  that  his  absence  caused  James 
to  defer  the  arrest  intended  for  December  26.^*  On  the  last 
night  of  December  1580  INIorton  was  accused  in  presence  of  the 
Council. ^^ 

The  scene  was  a  repetition  of  that  in  which  Crawford  accused 
Lethington.  Captain  James  Stewart  of  the  Guards  entered  the 
council  chamber,  fell  on  his  knees,  and  charged  Morton  with_^r^- 
knowledge  of  Darnley's  death.^^  Morton  rose  disdainfully,  protesting 
his  innocence,  and  his  past  diligence  in  pursuing  the  murderers. 
"  For  that,"  said  Stewart,  still  kneeling,  "  why  did  he  prefer  Mr 
Archibald  Douglas,  his  cousin,  to  the  place  of  a  Senator  of  the 
College  of  Justice,  who  was  known  to  have  been  an  actor  in  that 
murder,  if  he  himself  had  no  part  in  it?"^'^  Stewart  sprang  to  his 
feet,  both  men  laid  hand  to  hilt,  the  burly  Lindsay  and  Cathcart 
sundered  them  and  took  them  forth  from  the  chamber.  Morton 
returned,  Stewart  again  rushed  in,  a  new  ruffle  began,  and  was  again 
put  down.  ]Morton  was  locked  up  in  a  room  of  the  palace,  while 
Angus  and  Lennox  declined  to  vote  on  the  matter,  and  Eglintoun 
suggested  that  the  king's  Advocate  should  be  consulted.  He  ad- 
vised committal  and  trial,  and  on  Monday,  January  2,  1581,  Morton 
was  warded  in  Edinburgh  Castle.  Craig  in  his  Sunday  sermon 
inveighed  against  "  false  accusations."  The  accusation  was  per- 
fectly true,  but  then  Morton  was  a  "  professor,"  and  that  was 
enough.  Stewart  drew  his  dagger,  and  warned  Craig  that  the 
pulpit  should  not  protect  one  who  slandered  him.^^ 

Meanwhile  Archibald  Douglas  had  been  warned  and  had  fled  to 
Berwick,  where  he  arrived  on  January  6.  He  professed  his  readi- 
ness to  justify  himself,  if  examined  without  torture.     His  absence 


270  PLOTS   AND   FORGERIES   (1581). 

delayed  Morton's  case,  and  for  once  we  may  regret  that  Archibald 
was  not  treated  with  the  boot,  which  must  have  extracted  valuable 
historical  information.  On  Monday,  as  we  saw,  Morton  was  com- 
mitted to  Edinburgh  Castle.  As  he  went  he  was  cursed  by  a  woman 
whose  husband  he  had  hanged  for  making  a  ballad.  Many  a  man 
whom  Morton  had  injured  was  glad,  but  professors  regretted  the 
fall  of  one  who  "had  done  so  much  for  establishing  of  religion." ^^ 
He  had  many  private  foes,  however,  and,  even  among  the  godly, 
Lord  Ruthven  was  then  at  feud  with  him.  On  January  18,  1581, 
Morton  was  carried  to  Dumbarton  Castle  for  greater  security.  On 
the  next  day  Randolph  arrived  in  Edinburgh  :  Elizabeth  was  moving 
in  Morton's  interest.  She  would  try  diplomacy  through  Randolph ; 
she  moved  a  force,  under  Hunsdon,  to  the  Border,  and  Randolph 
in  Edinburgh,  Bowes  at  Berwick,  intrigued  with  Angus  and  the 
Douglases  in  favour  of  a  plot  to  seize  James  and  lay  violent  hands 
on  Lennox.  The  go-between  was  Douglas  of  Whittingham,  brother 
of  Archibald,  and,  like  him,  a  judge.  Bowes's  letters  are  full  of 
expectations  of  a  "  strange  masque  at  Holyrood,"  a  new  affair  of 
Riccio. 

But  all  was  vain.  Randolph  (January  25)  tried  the  effect  of 
producing  two  intercepted  letters  of  Archbishop  Beaton  to  prove 
that  Lennox  was  an  agent  of  France  and  of  the  Jesuits.  James 
told  Randolph  that  the  letters  seemed  to  be  forged,  or  written  by 
Beaton,  a  partisan  of  the  Hamiltons,  to  discredit  a  Lennox  Stewart. 
The  Estates  assembled  on  February  20,  and  Randolph  harangued 
them  on  the  24th.  He  produced  no  effect,  the  Estates  voted  sup- 
plies in  case  of  an  English  invasion.  Holyrood  was  guarded  closely 
by  James  Stewart.  On  March  8  the  king  agreed  to  settle  English 
disputes  by  a  meeting  of  commissioners  on  the  Border.  Mean- 
while a  scheme  had  been  contrived  to  enter  James's  rooms  by 
false  keys,  kill  Lennox,  Argyll,  and  Montrose,  and  carry  James  to 
England.  This  appears  to  have  been  a  plot  of  Angus ;  Randolph 
professed  his  disbelief  in  it  when  it  was  discovered.  The  con- 
spiracy was  brought  to  light  through  the  arrest  of  Whittingham, 
Affleck,  Jerdan,  and  other  agents  of  Morton  and  Angus.  Though 
not  "offered  the  boots"  (torture  in  the  boot),  Whittingham  re- 
vealed the  whole  affair,  and  accused  his  ingenuous  brother,  Archi- 
bald, of  forging  the  letters  which  Randolph  employed  to  discredit 
Lennox.  Bowes  protested  that  when  he  forwarded  the  letters  to 
London  from  Berwick,  where  Archibald  was  residing,  he  believed 


TRIAL   OF   MORTON.  27 1 

them  to  be  genuine.  This  was  not  the  opinion  of  four  of 
the  Edinburgh  preachers,  who  attested  Whittingham's  confession. 
"  The  ministers  have  seen  it,  and  in  their  sermons  give  God  great 
thanks  therefor,"  writes  Randolph  to  Hunsdon  on  March  20.  If 
the  very  preachers  admitted  that  Lennox  was  falsely  accused,  the 
case  looks  black  for  Archibald  and  the  letters  attributed  to  Arch- 
bishop Beaton,  which  he  intercepted,  and  handed  to  Bowes.  The 
confessions  of  Whittingham  made  Randolph's  position  perilous.  A 
placard  asked  why  he  came  from  Elizabeth  to  complain  of  James's 
liberality  to  his  kinsman,  Lennox.  Had  Elizabeth  not  been  liberal 
to  Leicester  and  Sir  Christopher  Hatton  ?  Elizabeth  was  now 
asking  for  the  expulsion  of  Sir  James  Balfour.  Why  had  she  never 
objected  to  him  through  the  years  when  he  was  Morton's  chief 
adviser  ?  Why  did  Elizabeth  shelter  Archibald  Douglas,  one  of 
Darnley's  assassins,  while  her  conscience  so  suddenly  stirred  her 
against  Sir  James  ?  If  Elizabeth's  Protestantism  was  alarmed  by 
Catholics  near  the  king,  why  was  she  treating  for  marriage  herself 
with  a  Catholic,  the  brother  of  the  King  of  France  ?  Did  Randolph 
take  pleasure  in  the  society  of  owls  and  nightingales  ?  was  that  why 
he  had  nocturnal  meetings  with  Angus  and  Mar? 

These  questions,  in  which  we  may  guess  the  hand  of  Lething- 
ton's  brother  John,  were  fixed  on  Randolph's  door  on  March  13. 
Affleck  had  confessed  on  March  12  ;  so,  probably,  had  Whitting- 
ham.^*' The  astute  Randolph  had  met  his  match  at  last.  Some 
less  ingenious  disputant  fired  a  shot  through  his  window  in  his 
absence  :  he  took  the  hint  and  retired  to  Berwick.  Angus  had 
been  banished  to  Inverness  :  his  castles  were  occupied,  the  people 
of  Dalkeith  were  disarmed  ;  there  was  left  no  force  on  Morton's 
side  to  co-operate  with  Hunsdon's  men  on  the  Border.  Elizabeth 
disbanded  them,  and  Morton's  doom  was  sealed. 

Lennox  and  James  Stewart  had  managed  their  concerns  with 
resolution  and  skill. "^^  Captain  James  Stewart  was  rewarded  with 
the  tutorship  of  the  mad  Earl  of  Arran,  and  presently  with  his 
earldom.  Morton  was  brought  from  Dumbarton  at  the  end  of 
May,  and  put  to  trial  on  June  i.  It  was  deemed  quickest  to 
accuse  him  of  Darnley's  murder  alone,  out  of  nineteen  charges.  ^ 
We  have  no  full  record  of  the  trial,  but  a  letter  of  Sir  John  Foster's 
to  Walsingham  shows  that  Morton's  meeting  with  Bothwell  and 
Lethington  at  Whittingham  about  January  19,  1567,  was  known 
to  the  judges.^2     On  that  occasion  he  was  made  privy  to  Darnley's 


272  EXECUTION    OF   MORTON    (1581). 

murder,  but  (he  said  in  his  confession)  refused  to  sign  the  band 
without  a  written  warrant  from  Mary,  which  he  never  obtained. 
We  may  reasonably  conjecture  that  this  evidence  was  extracted 
from  Douglas  of  Whittingham,  at  whose  house  the  plot  was  dis- 
cussed. Whatever  other  testimony  may  have  been  produced  (one 
part  was  the  queen's  accusation  of  Morton  at  Carberry),  Morton 
was  found  guilty  of  "art  and  part  of  concealing  of  the  king's 
father's  murder."  "  Art  and  part  !  God  knows  the  contrary  ! " 
Morton  is  said  to  have  exclaimed.  But  in  his  confession  to 
two  preachers,  Durie  and  Balcanquhal,  he  admitted  enough  to 
satisfy  them  of  the  justice  of  his  sentence.  He  told  the  story  of 
the  Whittingham  conference.  "  If  I  had  gotten  the  queen's  hand- 
write,  mid  so  had  hiown  her  mind,  I  was  purposed  to  have  turned 
my  back  on  Scotland."  Yet  he  calmly  assumed  that  he  did  know 
Mary's  mind,  and  that  it  v;as  murderous,  though  he  had  just  said 
that  he  did  not.  He  admitted  that,  knowing  Archibald  Douglas, 
by  his  own  confession,  to  have  taken  active  part  in  the  crime,  he 
continued  to  employ  him,  raising  him  to  the  bench.  The  preachers 
candidly  remarked  that  he  "confessed  the  foreknowledge  and  con- 
cealing of  the  king's  murder,"  and  so  "could  not  justly  complain  of 
his  sentence."  To  whom  could  he  reveal  it?  he  replied;  "To  the 
queen  :  she  was  the  doer  of  it."  Yet  he  confessedly  did  not  "know 
her  mind."  Morton  added,  regretfully,  that  "  he  expressed  not  the 
fruits  of  his  profession  in  his  hfe  and  conversation."  To  his  "  pro- 
fession "  he  returned,  in  a  manner  edifying,  and  perhaps  sincere. 
One  Binning,  a  servant  of  Archibald  Douglas,  who  confessed  that 
Archibald  lost  one  of  his  velvet  "  mules,"  or  slippers,  in  hurrying 
from  Kirk-o'-Field,  was  also  put  to  death.  Morton  died  bravely  : 
his  head  was  spiked  on  a  gable  of  the  Tolbooth. 

So  ended  the  last  of  Darnley's  murderers  who  died  by  the  law, 
and  of  the  men  who,  being  guilty  of  the  crime,  accused  their  queen. 
Morton  had  one  virtue  —  personal  courage ;  and  one  political 
merit,  a  strong  hand.  His  errors  were  conspicuous.*^^  His  title 
of  Earl  of  Morton  was  held  for  a  few  years  by  the  turbulent 
Lord  Maxwell. 


NOTES.  273 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   X. 

'  Bannatyne,  p.  427.  -  Diurnal,  p.  320. 

3  Wright's  Elizabeth,  i.  430.  *  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  229. 

°  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  259.  See  the  full  terms  of  the  pacification  in  the  Privy 
Council  Register,  ii.  193-200.     For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1572-74,  259-262. 

®  Spottiswoode,  i.  260. 

'  Privy  Council  Register,  ii.  216,  219. 

*  Journal  of  the  Siege,  Bannatyne  Miscellany,  ii.  72-80. 

»  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  355. 

^0  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  399-401. 

^^  Labanoff,  iv.  91  ;  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  470,  540,  550;  Robertson,  Inventories, 
cxxxvi,  cxxxvii ;  Privy  Council  Register,  ii.  330,  331,  435. 

12  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  x.  212. 

^'  In  Stevenson's  Nau,  pp.  133,  1 34. 

1*  Book  of  the  Universal  Kirk,  i.  335,  338,  342,  361,  362. 

^5  M'Crie,  Life  of  Andrevi'  Melville  (1819),  i.  126,  13 1.  Also  'The  Poetical 
Remains  of  Mr  John  Davidson'  :  Edinburgh,  1829.     Fifty  printed. 

^8  Book  of  the  Universal  Kirk,  i.  336.      1575. 

^^  Diurnal,  p.  341. 

^^  Hosack,  ii.  200,  note  6,  citing  "  Registry  of  Presentations." 

'*  Spottiswoode,  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  ii.  200  (1851). 

^'^  Tytler,  viii.  17  ;  Walsingham  to  Cecil  and  Elizabeth,  April  II,  12. 

-1  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1575.     No.  214-216-218. 

2-  For,  Cal.  Eliz.,  1575,  pp.  93,  94. 
■^  For.  Cal.  Eliz.,  1575,  pp.  97,  98. 
'^■^  Murdin,  pp.  282-2S6. 

^^  Spottiswoode,  ii.  203-205. 

2^  Spanish  Calendar,  ii.  486.     November  7,  1574. 

^  Papers  in  the  Scots  College  at  Paris.     Hosack,  Mary  Stuart,  ii.  Appendix  B. 

^  Spottiswoode,  ii.  205. 

^^  Labanoff,  v.  31,  32. 

^"  Moysie's  Memoirs,  Bannatyne  Club,  1830,  pp.  1-6. 

^'  Moysie,  pp.  7,  8,  gives  these  dates  :  Morton  goes  to  Stirling  on  May  28,  and 
is  more  powerful  than  Argyll,  AthoU,  and  the  rest,  though  they  are  admitted  to 
council  in  the  castle.  Cf.  Spottiswoode,  ii.  220-230 ;  Bowes'  Correspondence 
(Surtees  Society),  1842,  pp.  6-8 ;  Calderwood's  History  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland 
(1843),  iii.  408,  426. 

3-  Labanoff,  v.  51-67. 

^  Hosack,  ii.  546-550.     Scots  College  Papers. 

"•*  Randolph  to  Hunsdon,  March  20,  1681  ;  Tytler,  viii.  429. 

^^  Bowes,  p.  100. 

^^  May  31,  Mary  to  Henri  III.  ;  Labanoff,  v.  80. 

^  Moysie,  p.  25.  ^*  Moysie,  p.  26. 

*"  Thorpe,  Calendar,  Scotland,  i,  402.  ■*"  Bowes,  p.  78. 

*^  Thorpe,  i.  401.  *'-  Bowes,  pp.  50-59. 

^'  Calderwood,  iii.  463.  **  Calderwood,  iii.  468,  477. 

*^  Bowes,  pp.  65,  66.  *^  Bowes,  p.  69. 

VOL.    II.  S 


274 


NOTES. 


*^  Bowes,  pp.  92,  93. 
^^  Bowes,  pp.  109,  III. 
®2  Bowes,  pp.  155,  156. 


1581  ;   Laing,  ii.  314,   31S  ;   Froude,  xi.   19, 


^^  Bowes,  p.  84. 

^  Bowes,  p.  106. 

"  Bowes,  pp.  Ill,  112. 

^  Thorpe,  i.  415. 

**  Balfour  to  Mary,  January  31, 
382,  note  I. 

^  So  Moysie,  Calderwood,  and  others.  Bowes,  January  i,  1581,  says  that 
the  arrest  took  place  in  Morton's  own  chamber.  Probably  Moysie  and  the  others 
mean  to  place  the  acciisatioti  in  the  Council-room,  the  arrest,  following,  in  Mor- 
ton's own  room.     But  see  Bowes,  pp.  157-161. 

^  Calderwood,  iii.  481.  ''''  Spottiswoode,  ii.  271. 

^*  Bowes,  pp.  158,  160.  ^^  Calderwood,  iii.  482,  483. 

^  Calderwood,  iii.  506-510. 

*'  The  letters  and  other  sources  are  in  Bowes,  Calderwood,  and  the  Appendix 
to  Tytler,  viii.  416-431. 

*2  Tytler,  viii.  429,  430. 

^^  Cf.  The  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  pp.  382,  385,  and  Calderwood,  iii.  557- 
576. 


275 


CHAPTER   XI. 

KING     AND     KIRK. 
1581-1584. 

The  death  of  Morton  was  followed  by  that  long  struggle  between 
the  Crown  and  the  Kirk  which  filled  the  reign  of  James  VI.  The 
Protestant  party  had  never  looked  on  their  hold  of  the  country  as 
secure.  In  the  historical  perspective  we  see  that  their  constant 
trepidations  were  really  baseless,  but  it  was  impossible  for  men 
engaged  in  the  strife  to  estimate  correctly  the  chances  of  the  old 
and  the  new  faiths.  The  preachers  justly  resented  the  avarice  of 
the  lay  holders  of  Church  property,  without  perceiving  that  the  lay 
abbots  and  parsons  would  never  consent  to  imperil  their  wealth  by  a 
restoration  of  the  ancient  creed,  and  a  redistribution  of  the  Church 
lands.  The  very  thoroughness  of  the  robbery  was  the  protection  of 
the  Kirk.  England,  that  bulwark  of  Protestantism,  had,  in  fact,  little 
to  fear  from  the  disunited  Catholic  Powers.  While  Spain  and  France 
neutralised  each  other,  and  while  England  was  anti-Catholic,  the 
Kirk  was  safe.  Neither  distracted  France  nor  Spain  could  seriously 
take  hold  of  Scotland. 

Perhaps  that  which  favoured  most  the  slender  chances  of  a 
Catholic  restoration  north  of  Tweed  was  the  extreme  zeal  of 
preachers  who,  not  satisfied  to  live  apart  from  Rome,  were  in- 
tent on  building  up  a  theocracy  like  that  of  Geneva.  The  king, 
though  so  yoling,  was  a  precocious  theologian,  and  could  only  be 
driven  to  tamper  with  Rome  by  the  excessive  severities  of  the 
Scottish  Calvinists.  It  was  not  the  interest  of  James  to  change  his 
creed ;  he  desired  nothing  less  than  subordination  to  his  Catholic 
mother,  or  Catholic  kinsmen  of  the  House  of  Guise.  By  intellect, 
by    education,    and   by    conviction    he   was    Protestant.     Yet    the 


276  MORTON   AND   THE   KIRK. 

suspicion  with  which  he  was  regarded  by  his  own  clergy,  the  stern- 
ness of  their  discipline,  the  outrages  which  he  had  to  endure  from 
them  and  the  nobles  of  their  party,  forced  him  to  think  of  seeking 
assistance  from  Catholic  Powers,  and  perhaps  would  have  made 
him  change  his  creed,  if  anything  could  have  produced  that  effect. 
Thus  the  real  danger  of  Protestantism  in  Scotland,  if  danger  there 
was,  arose  from  the  magnitude  of  the  pretensions  of  the  preachers. 
They  occasionally  drove  the  king  into  dealings  with  the  Guises, 
with  France,  and  with  Rome, — traffickings  which  were  contrary  to 
his  natural  bent,  and  to  those  interests  of  his  in  England  which 
he  already  understood  very  well.  He  filled  the  Presbyterians  with 
fears ;  but  CathoUcs  of  sagacity  soon  ceased  to  entertain  hopes 
based  on  the  letters  and  demeanour  of  this  crafty  and  calculating 
young  prince.  As  our  latest  historian  remarks,  "The  absolutism  of 
James  was  forced  upon  him  in  large  degree  by  the  excessive  claims 
of  the  Presbyterian  clergy,"  while  "the  special  circumstances  in 
which  Andrew  Melville  found  the  country  "  offer  "  the  explanation 
of  those  extreme  claims  which  he  and  his  fellow-ministers  put  for- 
ward in  regard  to  the  mutual  relations  of  Church  and  State." 
By  open  policy  and  secret  intrigue  James  appeared  to  be  steadily 
working  for  the  overthrow  of  the  existing  religious  establishment. 
Thus  the  extreme  claims  of  the  ministers  forced  absolutism  on  the 
king,  and  the  absolutism  of  the  king  explains  "  the  extreme  claims  " 
of  the  ministers.^  In  brief,  two  mutually  exclusive,  intolerant,  and 
intolerable  theories  of  Church  and  State  were  in  open  collision. 

But  Morton,  we  must  remember,  though  never  suspected  of 
Catholic  tendencies,  had,  when  Regent,  been  at  least  as  high- 
handed towards  the  Kirk  as  the  young  king  himself.  Morton 
had  resisted  the  right  of  the  preachers  to  "  convocate  the  lieges." - 
When  requested  to  come  to  the  General  Assembly  and  "  further  the 
cause  of  God,"  he  not  only  refused,  but  threatened  some  of  the 
most  zealous  with  hanging,  alleging  that  otherwise  "  there  could  be 
no  peace  nor  order  in  the  country,"  a  theory  later  acted  on  by 
Charles  11.^  The  editor  of  Calderwood  tells  a  story  of  Morton's 
short  way  with  preachers.  A  certain  Captain  CuUen  had  been  with 
Mary  of  Guise  during  her  mortal  illness  at  Edinburgh  Castle, 
whence  he  corresponded  mth  her  brother,  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine. 
After  the  siege  of  Leith  he  entered  the  Danish  service,  and  after 
Riccio's  murder  was  a  captain  in  Mary's  guard  of  harquebus-men. 
He  was  said  to  have  advised  the  strangling  of  Darnley  at  Kirk-o'- 


CLAIMS   OF   THE   KIRK.  277 

Field,  as  he  had  observed  that  the  effects  of  explosions  were 
capricious.  He  was  captured  by  the  lords,  but  it  was  not  deemed 
wise  to  publish  his  revelations  :  he  was  allowed  to  escape,  forfeiting 
his  recognisances.'*  He  later  took  service  under  Kirkcaldy  when 
that  knight  held  the  castle  for  Mary.  The  captain,  after  a  skirmish, 
was  found  hiding  ingloriously  in  a  meat-safe.  He  had  a  very  pretty 
wife,  so  Morton  hanged  him  and  lived  with  his  widow.  For  this 
Morton  was  rebuked  by  Andrew  Douglas,  minister  of  Uunglas.  His 
reply,  it  is  said  by  Calderwood's  editor,  was  first  to  torture  Douglas 
in  the  boot,  and  then  hang  him, — a  story  not  easily  credible. 

Nevertheless,  from  1576  onwards  the  ministers  laboured,  first 
to  oppose  the  bishops,  and  next  to  "collect  out  of  the  Book  of 
God  a  form  of  discipline  and  policy  ecclesiastical ;  to  propose  it 
to  the  prince ;  and  to  crave  it  to  be  confirmed  as  a  law  pro- 
ceeding from  God"  (1578).^  This  was  the  'Book  of  the  Polecie 
of  the  Kirk,'  and  confirmed  it  never  was.  In  1580  "the  office 
of  bishops  was  damned."  Episcopacy,  the  Brethren  declared,  was 
"  brought  in  by  the  folly  of  men's  invention " ;  all  bishops  were 
discharged  from  all  functions,  and  could  not  sit  as  simple  minis- 
ters till  admitted  de  novo  by  the  General  Assembly,  under  penalty 
of  excommunication,  which  meant  universal  boycotting.  We  find 
Andrew  Melville  explaining  to  Beza  in  1578  that  the  nobles 
maintain  "  that  the  sentence  of  excommunication  shall  not  be 
held  valid  until  it  has  been  approved  by  the  king's  Council  after 
taking  cognisance  of  the  cause."  He  adds  that  "civil  penalties, 
according  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  our  country,  accompany 
the  sentence  of  excommunication."^  This  puts  the  case  of  the 
Kirk  in  a  nutshell.  They  claimed  the  right  to  inflict  the  sever- 
est civil  penalties  independent  of  the  civil  power.  The  Brethren, 
the  professors,  were  to  be  able,  through  their  pulpiteers,  to  deprive 
the  king's  servants  of  their  civil  rights  and  to  drive  them  from 
society. 

It  happened  in  1581  that  James's  Ministers  or  rulers,  Arran 
and  Lennox,  were  either  profligate  or  disloyal  to  the  established 
religion  of  their  country.  But  the  claim  of  the  Kirk  to  inflict 
civil  destruction,  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  State,  was  a  thing 
utterly  intolerable ;  and,  as  Morton  said,  there  never  was  peace 
or  order  in  Scotland  "  until  some  of  the  most  zealous  were 
hanged,"  and  the  rest  after  1688  were  content  to  abate  their 
unendurable    pretensions.      Meanwhile    several,    at    least,    of    the 


278  JAMES   A   PROTESTANT. 

bishops  of  1572-82  were  certainly  knaves,  corrupt  and  simoniacal, 
and  justly  opposed  by  the  Brethren.  It  is  a  quarrel  in  which 
neither  side  can  wholly  merit  our  sympathy ;  the  Court  favourites 
and  their  bishops  were  as  odious  as  the  exaggerated  desires  of 
the  Kirk  to  rule  the  State.  A  phrase  of  the  Second  Book 
of  Discipline  runs  thus  :  "  The  ministers  exercise  not  the  civil 
jurisdiction,  but  teach  the  magistrate  how  it  should  be  exercised 
according  to  the  Word."  The  magistrate  is  to  "submit  himself 
to  the  discipline  of  the  Kirk,  if  he  transgress  in  matters  of  con- 
science and  religion.""  Now  the  preachers  could  persuade  them- 
selves that  any  part  of  State  policy  —  say,  a  French  or  Spanish 
Alliance  or  marriage,  or  the  supporting  of  Episcopacy  —  was 
"matter  of  conscience."  Consequently  they  could  and  did  inter- 
fere, scolding  and  libelling  from  the  pulpit,  excommunicating  at 
their  own  wills,  and  yet  pretending  to  restrict  themselves  to  spirit- 
ual affairs. 

Thus  the  dragon's  teeth  were  sown  which  sprang  up  as  armed 
men  in  the  civil  wars.  On  the  other  hand,  thus  the  intrigues  of 
Lennox  for  handing  over  James  to  a  foreign  land  and  a  foreign  faith 
were  checked ;  while  James,  like  Mary,  was  goaded  by  sermons 
into  a  hatred  of  the  Kirk  which  produced  its  own  baneful  effects. 
It  was  a  deadlock.  Yet  it  is  highly  improbable  that  James,  left 
to  himself,  would  ever  have  returned  to  his  mother's  creed  ;  for 
by  training,  by  interest,  and  by  vanity  about  his  own  gifts  as  a 
theologian  he  was  Protestant. 

To  the  political  intrigues  which  followed  Morton's  death,  and 
to  their  ecclesiastical  embroilments,  we  now  return.  Just  before 
Morton's  head  fell,  Mary  wrote  to  Archbishop  Beaton  about  her 
hopes.  James  had  sent  her  letters  and  a  "token."  She  trusted 
that  he  would  come  into  her  devotion,  and  be  a  king  indeed,  for 
the  Continent  had  never  acknowledged  him  as  king.  Weary  and 
outworn  by  thirteen  years  of  prison,  she  only  wanted  to  be  at 
peace.  Yet  she  was  trying  to  establish  relations  between  James 
and  Spain,  contrary,  it  seems,  to  the  wishes  of  her  ambassador 
at  the  Court  of  France.^ 

Presently  (September  18,  1581)  Mary  resolved  on  the  scheme 
of  the  "  Association "  (a  shared  royalty)  between  her  and  James. 
She  had  never  acknowledged  him  as  king.  If  she  did  so  now, 
by  the  "Association,"  the  effect  would  be,  so  the  preachers  and 
the  Brethren  thought  when  the  plan  reached  their  ears,  to  annul 


MARY'S   INTRIGUES   (1581).  279 

the  acts  of  James's  reign  up  to  that  moment.  "  The  approbation 
of  religion,^  and  all  other  things  done  since  his  coronation, 
should  be  accounted  null ;  such  as  had  been  the  king's  friends 
should  be  counted  traitors,  and  his  adversaries  good  servants," 
says  Calderwood,  speaking  of  the  events  of  January  and  February 
in  the  following  year.-^'^ 

Meanwhile  in  Scotland,  since  Morton's  death,  Arran  (James 
Stewart)  and  Lennox  had  not  been  on  the  best  terms.  Arran  was 
playing  for  the  support  of  the  Kirk.  He  had,  indeed,  seduced  the 
wife  of  Lord  March — that  is,  of  James's  great-uncle,  his  grand- 
father Lennox's  brother,  who  had  been  transferred  to  the  Earldom 
of  March,  in  the  new  Lennox's  interest.  The  lady  got  a  scandal- 
ous divorce  and  was  married  to  Arran.  But  then  the  pair  sub- 
mitted to  the  censures  of  the  Kirk,  and,  like  Burns  in  later  days, 
occupied  the  place  of  penitence.  Lennox',  of  course,  was  intriguing 
against  the  Kirk  :  however,  he  and  Arran  were  reconciled.  James 
took  pleasure  in  the  society  of  the  new  Lady  Arran,  which  cannot 
have  been  improving  to  his  morals.  At  a  Parliament  in  October, 
Angus,  Archibald  Douglas,  and  many  others  of  the  name  were 
forfeited.  The  king,  however,  would  not  gratify  Lennox  by 
receiving  Sir  James  Balfour,  one  of  his  father's  murderers.  Later, 
James  was  less  scrupulous.  Elizabeth  sent  Errington  to  Scotland, 
as  usual  to  counterplot  Lennox ;  but  Errington  was  not  allowed  to 
cross  the  Border.  Elizabeth,  when  she  learned  this,  was  heard 
murmuring  her  rage  against  "that  false  scoundrel  of  Scotland," 
who  had  called  Morton  "  father  "  when  he  meant  to  have  Morton's 
head.  She  fell  back  on  an  attempt  to  set  Mary  against  her  son, 
and  to  restore  the  exiled  Hamiltons.  Her  interest  in  them  was 
caused  by  their  value  as  a  counterpoise  to  Lennox  and  the  Stewarts. 
But  Mary  was  not  to  be  entrapped.  The  wiles  of  a  prisoner  are 
de  bonne  giierre,  and  historians  waste  indignation  on  the  duplicity 
of  Elizabeth's  victim. 

Mary's  plan  was  to  deny  to  Elizabeth  that  she  had  any  special 
relations  with  Spain,  or  expected  any  aid  thence,  while  she  was 
really  treating  for  assistance  with  Mendoza,  the  Spanish  Am- 
bassador in  England. ^^  The  queen,  as  usual,  had  "  too  many 
irons  in  the  fire."  She  was  regarding  Mendoza  and  Spain  as  her 
chief  hopes,  but  her  affairs  and  those  of  Scotland  became  hopelessly 
embroiled  through  the  enthusiastic  efforts  of  Jesuit  traffickers  to 
sweep  Guise,  France,  the  English  Catholics,  and  the  Pope  into  an 


280  CROSS-INTRIGUES   BY  JESUITS. 

impossible  alliance  with  Spain.  On  the  English  Catholics  Mendoza 
himself  was  working  (September  1581).  To  them  he  pointed  out 
that  France  would  always  prevent  Spain  from  succouring  them, 
out  of  jealousy,  while  Scotland  was  the  true  point  d'apptii.  Six 
Catholic  English  lords,  therefore,  met  secretly,  and  sent  a  priest 
on  a  mission  to  Scotland — or  perhaps  two  were  sent.^^  The  envoy 
of  the  lords  was  to  see  Lennox,  and  tell  him  that  if  James  turned 
Catholic  many  of  the  English  nobles  and  people  would  declare  him 
heir  to  the  English  crown,  and  would  release  Mary.  If  James  de- 
clined conversion,  they  would  oppose  him  and  favour  another 
candidate.  These  English  lords  "are  all  Spanish  and  Catholic  at 
heart,"  and  desire  nothing  from  France.  If  James  came  into 
their  views,  they  would  send  their  sons  as  hostages  to  him,  and 
raise  the  North  in  arms,  restore  the  Church,  and  release  Mary. 
Mendoza  actually  "thought  the  business  well  founded."  Presently 
two  of  the  six  lords  were  in  prison. 

Though  the  subject  is  rather  obscure,  it  seems  that  an  emissary 
of  the  six  English  lords  was  taking  their  striking  proposals  into 
Scotland,  while  Father  Parsons,  or  Persons,  the  famous  Jesuit,  was 
simultaneously,  but  independently,  plotting  there,  first  through  Father 
Watts,  and  then  through  Father  Holt.  Parsons  had  apparently 
despatched  Watts  and  fled  to  France  before  the  six  lords  sent 
their  man.  The  Catholics  at  this  moment  were  being  furiously 
persecuted  in  England ;  it  was  the  time  of  the  martyrdom  of 
Campian ;  they  could  not  keep  in  touch  with  each  other's  plans, 
they  blundered  into  each  other's  plots,  and  no  business  could 
be  less  "  well  founded "  than  that  in  which  Mendoza  placed  his 
hopes.  Watts  met  Seton,  and  had  a  secret  interview  with  the 
young  king,  to  what  result  he  does  not  say.  He  had  hopes 
of  Lennox,  Huntly,  Eglinton,  Caithness,  Seton,  Ogilvy,  and 
Ferniehirst.  But  all  of  those  were  conspicuously  broken  reeds : 
they  would  not  even  pay  the  expenses  of  Catholic  missionaries,  if 
Parsons  sent  them  !  ^^  The  person  sent  by  the  English  lords  met 
the  same  noblemen  in  Scotland,  who,  unanimously  and  with  en- 
thusiasm, declined  to  be  at  any  expense  for  the  salvation  of  their 
souls.  If  somebody  else  would  pay  the  Catholic  missionaries,  they 
would  get  them  a  secret  hearing  from  the  king.  This  envoy  had 
little  to  do  with  Lennox,  whom  he  found  French,  not  Spanish, 
and  "avowedly  schismatic."  So  Mendoza  wrote  on  October  20, 
and  it  is  really  difficult  to  determine  whether  he  is  not  speaking 


LENNOX'S   VAIN    HOPES   (1582).  281 

of  Watts  after  all.  In  any  case,  Father  Parsons,  and  Allen,  later 
cardinal,  in  France,  heard  of  the  results,  which,  we  see,  came  to 
no  more  than  this,  that  if  the  Jesuits  would  send  missionaries 
to  Scotland  at  their  own  expense,  Seton  and  Ferniehirst  and  the 
rest  would  see  what  they  could  do.  That  was  a  very  different 
thing  from  converting  James  by  way  of  a  coup  de  mam  and  the 
offer  of  the  English  succession.^* 

Meanwhile  Mary  was  keeping  her  faithful  Beaton,  her  ambas- 
sador in  France,  in  the  dark,  and  was  trafficking  through  Allen. 
Parsons  now  sent  Father  Holt  into  Scotland  with  the  priest 
who  had  been  the  envoy  of  the  English  lords  (two  of  whom  were 
already  in  prison).  On  February  9,  1582,  Mendoza  reported  to 
Philip  a  message  brought  by  Holt  from  Scotland.  He  had  met 
Lennox,  Huntly,  Argyll,  and  others,  who  suggested  the  follow- 
ing hopeful  plan  :  (i)  To  convert  James  by  disputations  between 
Presbyterians  and  Catholics.  (2)  If  he  will  not  be  converted  by 
fair  means,  to  get  Mary's  leave  to  convert  him  by  force.  (3)  To 
carry  him  out  of  the  country,  if  Mary  approves.  (4)  Or  to  depose 
him  till  Mary  arrives.  For  those  purposes  they  need  the  aid  of 
2000  men  in  Spanish  service.  The  puerile  absurdity  of  these 
proposals  is  conspicuous.  Even  Mendoza  knew  that  not  only  the 
preachers,  but  Arran,  "a  terrible  heretic,"  were  opposed  to  the 
Church ;  the  idea,  therefore,  was  to  murder  Arran. ^^  Later  it 
was  the  English  who  desired  to  murder  him. 

Mendoza  sent  Holt  back  to  Scotland,  approving  of  the  pro- 
posals, and  now  (February  -  March,  1582)  Holt  was  joined  in 
Scotland  by  the  Scottish  Jesuit,  Father  Creighton.  He  had  con- 
ferred with  Guise  on  the  way,  thus  beginning  to  bring  in  the 
French  influence,  and  to  tangle  the  threads  which  Mendoza 
wished  to  keep  in  his  own  hands.  He  was  hidden  in  Holyrood 
for  several  days,  and  Lennox  wrote  to  Mary.  He  had  learned 
from  Creighton  that  he  himself  was  to  head  a  papal  and  Span- 
ish army  for  her  relief,  an  army  of  15,000  men.  He  therefore 
proposed  to  go  over  to  France  to  make  arrangements.  The  plot 
was  already  burlesque.  Who  was  to  give  15,000  men  to  be  led  by 
Lennox  ?  Already,  too,  Walsingham  and  Leicester  had  an  English 
counterplot  with  Angus  to  seize  James,  and  they  expected  to  pur- 
chase Arran  (March  19,  1582).^''  Meanwhile  Mary  and  Mendoza 
knew  that  Lennox's  15,000  men  were  men  in  buckram.  "It  is 
the   first,"   writes   Mary  to  Mendoza,   "  that  I  have  heard  of  such 


282  JESUIT   BLUNDERS. 

a  thing."  She  desired  the  whole  affair  to  be  concealed  from  de 
Tassis,  the  Spanish  Ambassador  in  France,  and  she  laughed  at  the 
absurd  desire  of  the  intriguing  Jesuits,  that  Mendoza  should  leave 
London  to  meet  them  at  Rouen  (April  6,  1582).^^  Mary,  in  short, 
declined  to  be  mixed  up  with  the  Jesuits.  Mendoza  told  Philip  that 
Father  Creighton  "  has  changed  my  mode  of  procedure  "  by  invent- 
ing airy  armies,  and  giving  the  baton  of  command  to  Lennox. ^^ 

Both  Mary  and  Mendoza  opposed  Lennox's  desire  to  leave  for 
France.  France  was  the  very  country  they  wished  to  keep  in 
the  dark,  as  any  large  Spanish  force  leaving  for  Scotland  would 
bring  the  French,  from  jealousy,  to  the  aid  of  England.  Men- 
doza entreated  Creighton  and  Holt  to  confine  themselves  to  the 
saving  of  souls, — it  was  a  pity  that  the  clergy  should  interfere  in 
military  matters.  They  continued  to  interfere.  At  the  end  of 
April  Mendoza  was  asking  Beaton  in  Paris  what  grounds  Creigh- 
ton could  have  for  his  high-flown  promises  of  an  army  to  Len- 
nox, while  Elizabeth  (he  says,  probably  exaggerating)  was  sending 
money  and  jewels  to  Scotland  to  bribe  the  party  out  of  power 
to  seize  the  king.^^  Mary  was  still  most  anxious  (May  15)  that 
the  affair  should  be  kept  secret  from  de  Tassis,  the  Spanish  Am- 
bassador at  Paris.  But  the  Jesuits,  in  the  Scots  familiar  phrase, 
"  let  the  pigs  run  through  the  job."  Creighton  and  Holt,  dis- 
obeying Mendoza,  had  gone  to  Paris,  had  met  Beaton  and  Guise, 
Parsons  and  Allen.  They  reported  dreams  of  Lennox:  with  Spanish 
forces  he  would  convert  Scotland  and  James,  and  rouse  the  North, 
and  restore  England  to  Rome.  Guise  offered  to  invade  Sussex  as 
soon  as  the  Spaniards  landed  in  Scotland  ;  Parsons  was  to  carry 
letters  from  Lennox  to  Philip ;  Creighton  to  the  Pope.  Lennox's 
demands  were  now  immense,  20,000  men  for  Scotland,  large  sums 
of  money,  a  guarantee  for  the  value  of  his  own  estates.  Yet 
Creighton  reported  that  James  was  still  a  heretic,  though  in  constant 
danger  of  his  life  from  the  plots  of  Elizabeth.^''  Mendoza  "  ex- 
pressed a  wish,  as  a  Christian,"  that  the  Catholic  schemers  "  might 
succeed."  They  met  Guise  at  the  house  of  de  Tassis,  whom  Mary 
wished  to  keep  out  of  the  affair,  which  Guise  wished  to  be  sub- 
sidised by  the  Pope  alone,  so  de  Tassis  wrote  to  Philip  (May  29). 
Philip  saw  that  too  many  people  knew,  and  asked  de  Tassis  to 
detain   Parsons  (June   11).      In  fact  he  stamped  out  the  plot. 

While  the  Jesuits  were  taking  all  into  their  own  hands  with 
boyish   eagerness,   the  preachers   in   Scotland   knew   that    mischief 


A    NATIONAL   COVENANT.  283 

was  on  hand.  By  January  15 82  the  preachers  had  found  out 
the  scheme  of  the  Association.  On  January  24,  1582,  Durie 
informed  his  Edinburgh  congregation  that  James  was  to  traffic 
with  France,  the  Due  de  Guise,  and  his  mother :  Durie  had 
wormed  it  out  of  George  Douglas,  Mary's  agent. ^^  At  that  time 
sermons  were  naturally  popular.  They  contained  the  latest  news, 
foreign  and  domestic,  with  a  violent  harangue.  A  National 
Covenant  or  band  against  the  Roman  pravity  had  already  been 
sworn  to  and  subscribed  (March  1581),  specially  directed  against 
Catholics  who  falsely,  and  for  political  reasons,  pretended  to  be 
adherents  of  the  truth.  James  himself  was  a  covenanter;  so 
was  Lennox,  but  that  did  no  longer  protect  him  :  Durie  was  on 
him ;  and  henceforth  attacked  him  from  the  pulpit.  Lennox  had 
got  the  gift  of  the  archbishopric  of  Glasgow,  and  had  appointed  a 
minister  named  Montgomery  as  tulchan  archbishop.  Montgomery 
was  paid  to  be  a  filter  through  which  the  money  would  reach 
Lennox.  Simony  could  not  be  carried  further.  The  preachers 
persecuted  Montgomery,  and  terrified  him  into  submission  by 
threats  of  excommunication,  but  he  took  heart  again,  and  tried 
to  occupy  his  pulpit  in  the  cathedral. 

It  is  not  easy  for  us  to  know  what  kind  of  men  the  mass  of  the 
ministers  were  at  this  period.  In  1577  Morton  had  sent  a  long  list 
of  questions  to  the  General  Assembly.  Some  of  them  were  conceived 
in  a  spirit  of  mockery,  such  as,  "  Whether  a  man  may  be  both  a 
minister  and  a  reader,  or  an  officer  of  arms,  or  a  lord's  or  laird's 
steward,  grieve,  pantry-man,  or  porter  ? "  Ministers  might  keep 
public-houses,  and  it  is  probable  enough  that  some  of  them,  in  the 
deficiency  of  endowments,  resided  with  lairds  as  chaplains,  assisting 
also  in  keeping  the  accounts  of  the  estate.  Many  of  the  ministers, 
certainly,  were  men  of  learning,  such  as  Melville,  Smeaton,  Pont 
(who  was  skilled  in  the  law),  Davidson  (who  wrote  the  humorous 
poem  against  Morton) ;  and  one  of  their  charges  against  Lennox's 
archbishop,  Montgomery,  was  that  he  spoke  disrespectfully  of  the 
learned  languages.  "  He  went  about,  so  far  as  he  could,  to  bring 
the  original  languages,  Greek  and  Hebrew,  in  contempt."  He  also 
begged  the  preachers  "to  leave  off  to  put  on  crowns  and  off 
crowns,"  and  he  daringly  denied  that  the  majority  of  mankind  go 
to  hell.^^     This,  at  least,  is  asserted  by  his  enemies. 

In  April  the  Glasgow  ministers  were  summoned  to  meet  James 
at  Stirling,  and  to  accept  Montgomery.     Accompanied  by  many  of 


284  A    BAND   AGAINST   LENNOX    (1582). 

the  Brethren,  they  refused  to  acknowledge  the  Royal  power  in  the 
matter,  and  Durie  threatened  to  excommunicate  the  archbishop 
elect.-^  Not  long  after,  in  May,  a  present  of  horses  arrived  for 
James  from  the  Due  de  Guise.  The  man  who  brought  them  had 
been  employed  to  carry  the  head  of  Coligny  as  a  token  of  the  suc- 
cess of  the  Bartholomew  massacre,  and  nothing  could  have  been 
better  calculated  than  his  arrival  to  arouse  the  anger  of  the  Pro- 
testants. Durie  went  to  Kinneill,  where  James  was  staying  with 
Lennox,  and  rebuked  the  king.  On  May  23  he  preached  against 
Lennox  and  Arran.  This  was  on  a  Wednesday,  for  Wednesdays 
and  Fridays  were  days  of  preaching.  Next  week  he  was  summoned 
to  Dalkeith,  and  insulted  by  Lennox's  kitchen  valetry.  James 
ordered  him  to  leave  Edinburgh.  He  was  backed  by  his  presby- 
tery, but  was  compelled  to  go.  On  June  9  the  presbytery  decided 
to  excommunicate  Montgomery,  and  the  poet  Davidson  "  did  the 
curse  "  in  the  kirk  of  Liberton.  He  proposed  to  renew  at  Perth  the 
armed  rising  which  began  the  Reformation.^*  Lennox  was  cen- 
sured for  entertaining  the  excommunicated  Montgomery ;  and  a 
list  of  complaints  was  sent  to  James,  including  his  relations  with 
the  bloody  persecutor  Guise.  On  July  6,  at  Perth,  Arran  asked 
Andrew  Melville  who  dared  subscribe  these  articles  ?  "  We  dare, 
and  will  subscribe  them,  and  render  our  lives  in  the  cause,"  said 
Andrew,  and  all  signed.  Lennox  and  Arran  perceived  that  the 
preachers  had  some  lay  support. 

On  June  27  Andrew  Melville  (now  Principal  of  St  Mary's  College 
in  St  Andrews)  denounced  the  "bloody  gully "  of  absolute  power 
before  the  General  Assembly.  Of  all  people.  Sir  James  Balfour 
was  present  as  an  elder  !  The  "  secret  assistance  "  which  the  Kirk 
expected  took  the  usual  shape  of  a  band  "against  Dobany" 
(D'Aubigny,  Lennox)  among  the  discontented  lords,  such  as  the 
Earl  of  Gowrie  (Ruthven,  who  had  aided  his  father  in  Riccio's 
murder),  Angus,  Mar,  Glencairn,  Argyll,  Lindsay,  Rothes,  and 
others.  Elizabeth  supplied  Angus  with  money,  and  Lennox 
dreaded  assassination.^^  Mendoza  represents  him  as  personally 
timid  in  an  acute  degree.  Montgomery,  as  an  excommunicated 
man,  was  driven  out  of  Edinburgh  by  the  mob  in  circumstances  so 
ludicrous  that  James,  hearing  of  the  matter,  lay  down  on  the  soil 
of  the  Inch  of  Perth,  where  he  rolled  about  in  helpless  laughter.-^ 
Though  the  king's  sense  of  humour  was  strong,  he  seems  to  have 
been  aware  that  a  plot  against  him  had  been  arranged,  and  de- 


THE   RAID   OF   RUTHVEN    (1582).  285 

feated,  in  July.  Bowes  (August  15)  had  warned  Glencairn,  Mar, 
Boyd,  Lindsay,  and  others  that  Lennox  meant  to  arrest  them 
for  this  conspiracy.^^  There  was  strife  between  the  artisans  and 
burgesses  of  Edinburgh,  the  craftsmen  insisting  on  being  repre- 
sented in  the  town  council.  In  this  dispute  Lennox  and  Arran 
took  opposite  sides.  Lennox  meant  to  have  occupied  Edinburgh 
with  Borderers  on  August  27  ;  but  the  discontented  lords,  Gowrie 
and  his  faction,  though  the  scheme  of  their  band  was  incomplete, 
anticipated  Lennox's  movement  against  them,  and  seized  the  person 
of  James,  who  was  unaccompanied  by  Arran  and  Lennox,  in  the 
coup  d'etat  known  as  the  Raid  of  Ruthven. 

It  was  on  August  22  that  Gowrie  (Ruthven),  Mar,  the  Master  of 
Glamis,  Lindsay,  and  others  took  and,  held  James  at  Ruthven 
Castle,  near  Perth,  a  seat  of  Gowrie,  where  he  had  been  hunting. 
Neither  Arran  nor  Lennox  was  with  him, — he  was  fairly  trapped. 
The  plot  had  been  managed  by  Angus,  with  the  collusion  of  Eng- 
land, which  desired  the  deaths  both  of  Lennox  and  Arran.  Spottis- 
woode  narrates  that,  as  James  tried  to  leave  the  room  where  the 
conspirators  were,  the  Master  of  Glamis  stepped  to  the  door  and 
stopped  him.  The  king  burst  into  tears.  "  Better  bairns  weep 
than  bearded  men,"  quoth  the  Master.^^  Calderwood  makes  Stir- 
ling the  scene,  the  time  August  31,  and  makes  the  Master  of 
Glamis  insult  James  by  thrusting  his  leg  before  him.  Mendoza 
gives  another  account  of  this  insult,  making  Gowrie  interfere, 
and  dating  the  event  on  October  13.  Mendoza,  as  translated  by 
Major  Martin  Hume,  says  nothing  about  Gowrie's  insulting  leg.  As 
rendered  by  Mr  Froude  he  does,  and  asks  someone  to  bring  the 
king  "  a  rocking-horse  " — "  a  poney  "  in  Major  Hume's  rendering. ^^ 
Mr  Froude  adds  that  James  "  swore  he  would  make  Gowrie  pay 
for  the  insult  with  his  life";  Major  Hume,  "that  he  would  reward 
him  for  it  some  day." 

In  spite  of  these  confusions  of  evidence,  James  was  probably  in- 
sulted, and  certainly  regarded  himself  as  a  captive  and  dishonoured. 
This  "  bairn  "  bided  his  time,  and  made  "  bearded  men  weep  "  when 
it  came.  Meanwhile  he  was  powerless.  Arran  at  once  rode  to 
him  with  one  or  two  grooms  :  his  brother  was  waylaid  and  wounded  : 
Arran  himself  was  made  prisoner.  Next  day  the  captors  laid  their 
grievances  before  James.  He  governed,  it  was  said,  not  through 
his  Council,  but  through  Lennox,  who  was  known  to  intrigue  with 
Bishop   Lesley  and   Archbishop   Beaton.     The   "  ministers  of  the 


286  AN    ENGLISH    MURDER   PLOT. 

blessed  Evangel,  and  the  true  professors,"  had  taken  the  liberty  to 
emancipate  James  from  such  advisers.^"  James  was  brought  to 
Perth,  and,  like  his  mother  when  seized  by  Bothwell,  had  to  pro- 
claim that  he  was  no  captive.  Lennox,  with  Herries,  Maxwell, 
Home,  Seton,  and  Ferniehirst,  repaired  to  Edinburgh,  but  took  no 
energetic  measures.^^  The  new  Bothwell,  Francis  Stewart,  recently 
brought  back  by  the  king  from  Italy,  son  of  a  sister  of  Bothwell's 
by  a  bastard  of  James  V.,  was  with  the  Gowrie  party,  so  was  holy 
Ker  of  Faldonside.  Elizabeth  (August  30)  sent  Sir  George  Carey  to 
James,  complaining  of  Lennox.^^  Bowes  was  also  sent,  and  the 
veteran  Randolph  was  most  anxious  to  go.  He  had  sown  the  seeds, 
as  Archibald  Douglas  told  him,  when  trying  to  do  a  bargain  with 
him  in  horse-flesh,  for  now  Archibald  hoped  to  ride  home.^^  Archi- 
bald says  that  Arran  was  offering  to  accuse  Lennox  of  treason,  and 
it  is  very  probable.^*  However,  Archibald  was  to  sell  himself 
frequently  before  he  crossed  the  Border. 

From  Edinburgh  Lennox  sent  envoys  to  James,  who  assured 
them  that  he  was  a  captive.  The  young  king  was  sorely  tried. 
The  Lennox  plot  had  been  to  convert  him  by  force,  and  carry  him 
abroad,  if  necessary.  The  Ruthven  raiders  held  him  a  prisoner,  and 
his  life  was  in  danger.  James  was  hke  his  grandfather  when  Sir 
George  Douglas  told  him  that  they  would  tear  him  in  two  if  the 
adverse  party  took  hold  of  him.  The  foreigners  and  Lennox  pulled 
one  way,  England  and  the  Ruthven  raiders  tugged  in  the  opposite 
direction.  But  James  was  fond  of  Lennox  ;  his  Ruthven  captors 
he  detested,  except  Mar.  Historians  maintain  that  James  was 
ready  to  barter  his  creed  for  political  advantages.^^  This  was  not 
his  mother's  opinion.  "  As  his  mother  remarks,"  wrote  Mendoza, 
"  preaching  will  be  of  no  avail  to  convert  the  king ;  he  and  the 
country  must  be  dealt  with  by  main  force  "^^  (August  30).  The 
day  after  Mendoza  wrote  thus,  he  learned  that  Elizabeth  had 
heard  of  the  success  of  her  plot  with  Angus  —  the  Raid  of 
Ruthven.  Mendoza  also  heard,  and  this  is  notable,  that  the 
English  trafficker  with  Angus  was  the  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  and 
that  his  party  were  muttering  that  it  would  be  well  to  poison 
both  James  and  Mary,  "  whereby  Leicester  and  his  party  of 
heretics  think  they  can  assure  the  claim  of  Huntingdon."  This 
was  probably  true ;  for,  later,  Gowrie  confessed  that  he  had 
known  an  English  plot  to  cut  off  both  James  and  Mary,  and  had 
refused    to    carry   it    out.^''       Gowrie   told   the   same   story   to   the 


JAMES   AND   LENNOX.  28/ 

Master  of  Gray.  Thus  assassination  plots  were  not  confined  to 
the  Catholic  party,  nor  to  the  Scots. 

The  Ruthven  raiders  held  power  for  but  ten  months.  The  letters 
of  Bowes,  the  English  Ambassador,  then  in  Scotland,  prove  that  the 
party  was  never  solid  :  they  all  suspected  each  other ;  even  Gowrie 
was  under  suspicion,  Glencairn  was  doubtful,  and  Bowes  could  only 
trust  Mar  and  the  Master  of  Glamis,  as  a  rule.  The  aim  of  the  party 
was  to  get  Lennox,  who  had  taken  refuge  in  Dumbarton,  out  of 
Scotland.  Bowes  was  usually  convinced  that  James  was  with  him 
and  the  raiders  in  this  desire ;  later  he  misdoubted  that  "  the  young 
cock  "  had  beguiled  him.  After  many  delays  and  intrigues,  Lennox 
obtained  leave  to  go  to  France  through  England.  But  he  had  first 
appeared  at  Blackness,  awaiting  the  result  of  a  rather  ingenious  plan 
for  seizing  James.  The  conspirators  were  to  conceal  themselves  in 
the  dark  gallery  over  the  Royal  Chapel,  and  thence,  when  the  nobles 
had  left  the  king  after  supper,  were  to  enter  the  palace  by  a  little 
entry,  of  which  James's  porter,  Boig,  had  given  them  the  keys.  They 
would  "  persuade  the  king  to  be  contented,  and  send  for  Lennox," 
and  would  then  kill  Mar,  John  Colville,  a  busy  man  on  the  raiders' 
side,  and  others  :  all  this  on  the  night  of  Lennox's  hasty  arrival  at 
Blackness  (November  28).^^  Lennox,  when  he  arrived  in  England, 
acquainted  Mendoza  with  this  plot  and  its  divulgence  by  "the  king's 
houndsman."^^ 

To  what  extent  was  James  himself  a  consenting  party  to  this  new 
seizure  of  his  person,  and  how  far,  on  the  whole,  did  he  go  with 
Lennox  in  his  designs  for  a  restoration  of  the  Church  ?  The  answer 
depends  on  another  question.  How  far  was  James  aware  of  Lennox's 
designs  for  an  alteration  of  religion  ?  Lennox,  we  must  remember, 
had  signed  the  National  Covenant,  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
he  had  ever  revealed  to  James  his  intention  of  converting  him  by 
force,  or  carrying  him  abroad  to  be  converted.  James  was  personally 
fond  of  Lennox,  and  he  regarded  himself  as  a  captive,  and  an  in- 
sulted captive,  of  the  raiders.  His  position  was  this :  he  had 
promised  Elizabeth  that  Lennox  should  go  to  France,  and  he  tried 
to  send  him  thither.  So  fai»  he  was  not  deceiving  Bowes.  But, 
already  a  casuist,  he  reckoned  that  he  had  never  promised  that 
Lennox  should  not  return.  While  Lennox  was  in  Scotland  the  life 
of  James  was  not  safe  from  the  raiders.  They  knew  the  peril  of 
their  own  position,  and  Bowes  knew  it.  They  held  a  wolf  by  the 
ears.     Elizabeth  would  not  pay  them — would  not  pay  the  guard  they 


288  THE   RAIDERS   PLAY   FOR   SAFETY. 

had  set  over  the  king :  probably  she  would  desert  them.  One  day 
James  would  escape  and  revenge  himself.  If  they  listened  to  their 
English  allies  they  would  kill  James ;  but  to  kill  James  meant  a 
Hamilton  as  king,  or  a  civil  war.  They  were  thus  anxious  merely 
to  get  Lennox  out  of  the  country,  and  the  king  knew  that  this  measure 
was  for  his  own  safety.  Whether  he  would  willingly  have  gone  with 
Lennox,  had  the  attempt  from  Blackness  succeeded,  we  cannot  tell. 
But,  knowing  now  of  the  attempt,  James  had  arranged  to  recall 
Lennox  from  France,  and  a  plan  had  been  sketched  for  trapping  the 
Ruthven  lords  in  Edinburgh  Castle  and  freeing  the  king — so  Lennox 
informed  Mendoza.**^  Meanwhile,  publicly,  James  had  been  forced 
to  acquiesce  in  the  situation.     He  did  not  dismiss  Boig,  the  porter. 

While  Lennox  tarried  at  Dumbarton  the  lords  had  put  forth  an 
enormously  long  indictment  of  him,  which,  from  the  style,  seems  to 
have  been  composed  by  the  preachers,  or  by  John  Colville,  who 
had  been  a  preacher,  and  was  their  man  of  tongue  and  pen. 
Lennox  replied,  and  asked  to  be  heard  before  Parliament ;  but  it 
was  not  the  way  to  permit  accused  persons  to  defend  themselves, 
as  we  know  from  the  case  of  Queen  Mary.  Craig  scolded  James 
in  public.^^  Angus  was  admitted  to  the  king's  peace.  On  October 
19,  1582,  a  Parliament,  or  Convention,  met  at  Holyrood.  Its 
proceedings,  in  the  recorded  Acts  of  Parliament,  are  deleted, — 
crossed  out, — and,  so  marked,  look  oddly  in  the  printed  Acts  (vol. 
iii.  pp.  326-328).  The  deleted  proceedings  announce  that  holy 
religion  and  his  majesty's  royal  person  were  in  peril,  wherefore 
Gowrie  and  the  rest  were  compelled  to  commit  the  Raid  of 
Ruthven,  which  is  decreed  to  be  "good,  sincere,  thankful,  and 
necessary  service."  Arran  is  to  be  warded  by  Gowrie  at  Ruthven. 
James,  on  the  first  opportunity,  scored  out  this  paper  security  for 
the  Ruthven  lords. 

A  General  Assembly,  meeting  in  October,  had  ratified  the 
Ruthven  conspiracy  with  their  spiritual  approval,  which  was, 
apparently,  infallible.  This  action  James  never  forgave,  though  he 
had  been  consulted  by  the  preachers,  and  had  given  them  his 
sanction.  Bowes  meanwhile  was  making  efforts  to  extract  the 
casket  and  casket  letters  for  Elizabeth  from  Gowrie,  but  failed. 
After  Govvrie's  death  the  letters  entirely  vanished.  A  casket  at 
Hamilton  Palace  is  not  the  original  coffer.^-  Mary  had  been 
declaring  the  letters  forgeries,  and  menacing  their  holders.  Bowes 
said  that  Elizabeth  needed  them  "  for  the  secrecy  and  benefit  of  the 


LENNOX    LEAVES   SCOTLAND.  2S9 

cause,"    a    phrase    which   will   be   diversely   interpreted    by   Mary's 
friends  and  enemies. 

The  end  of  the  complicated  intrigues  of  this  year  was  that 
Lennox  at  last  went  to  London,  on  his  way  to  Paris  ;  that  Angus 
was  seemingly  received  into  favour  by  James ;  that  James  felt,  or 
pretended,  great  devotion  to  EHzabeth.  But  from  Bowes's  long 
and  tedious  letters  it  is  plain  that  the  Ruthven  conspirators  were 
uneasy  and  at  odds  among  themselves ;  that  Arran  was  likely  to 
be  liberated ;  and  that  Elizabeth  would  not  take  the  only  way  to 
attach  to  herself  the  Ruthven  lords — would  not  buy  them. 

History,  it  is  said,  does  not  repeat  itself.  At  this  time  in  Scotland 
history  was  a  series  of  repetitions.  There  was  a  formula,  the  old 
play  was  played,  with  occasional  changes  in  the  actors.  The 
English  and  Protestant  lords,  backed  by  the  Kirk,  seized  the  king, 
relying  on  the  aid  of  Elizabeth.  She  was  too  thrifty  to  pay  them 
adequately ;  their  party  dwindled ;  the  French  or  Spanish,  or 
anti-Kirk  party,  got  the  king ;  Catholic  plots  were  woven ;  they 
were  discovered ;  the  webs  were  rent ;  and  the  English  party  of 
the  lords  had  another  chance.  The  quarrel  about  Episcopacy 
broke  forth,  was  quieted,  and  broke  forth  again.  Elizabeth  played 
the  game  of  cat  and  mouse  with  Mary,  and  set  Mary  against  James, 
James  against  his  mother,  till  the  axe  fell  at  Fotheringay.  The 
result  was  that  James,  a  nervous  creature,  perpetually  in  danger  of 
his  life,  captured,  preached  at,  bullied,  became  one  of  the  falsest 
and  most  selfish  of  dissemblers,  longing  for  freedom  and  revenge, 
and,  in  appearance  at  least,  wavering  in  religion. 

When  Lennox  left  Scotland  with  shattered  health,  two  French 
ambassadors  arrived :  first  La  Mothe  Fenelon,  accompanied  by 
Davison  as  a  spy ;  later  came  Mainville.  Lennox  and  La  Mothe 
met  on  the  road  and  had  a  brief  conversation,  to  which  Davison 
listened,  as  far  as  the  wind  and  rain  permitted.  James  was,  or 
pretended  to  be,  anxious  to  get  rid  of  La  Mothe. 

La  Mothe  delivered  an  address  on  the  Old  Alliance,  the  desir- 
ableness of  constitutional  action,  his  king's  anxiety  for  James's 
freedom,  his  hope  that  James  would  let  bygones  be  bygones,  and 
so  forth.^3  'Phg  ministers  correctly  suspected  deeper  designs,  and 
sent  a  deputation  about  the  dangers  to  religion.  Mainville  wore 
the  cross  of  an  order — this  was  a  badge  of  antichrist.  He  desired 
a  private  mass,  a  thing  not  to  be  endured.  He  washed  the  feet  of 
thirteen  poor  men  on  Maundy  Thursday — nothing  could  be  more 

VOL.    II.  T 


2QO  DEATH    OF    LENNOX    (1583). 

detestable.  When  the  magistrates,  by  James's  order,  gave  La 
Mothe  a  dinner,  the  preachers  proclaimed  a  fast,  and  three  sermons 
were  preached  in  five  hours.  La  Mothe  retired ;  he  had  brought 
gold  with  him,  and  may  have  bought  a  few  lords.  Mainville  stayed 
longer,  waiting  to  see  how  affairs  would  turn. 

In  London  Lennox  had  seen  Elizabeth,  and  announced  him- 
self a  Protestant,  while  through  his  secretary  he  assured  Mendoza 
that  he  was  a  Catholic,  and  would  land  again  in  Scotland  with 
a  Catholic  army  under  Guise.  In  Paris,  however,  he  would 
play  the  Huguenot  to  blind  his  enemies.  Once  arrived  in  Paris, 
he  either  betrayed  Mary's  and  Guise's  plans,  and  a  scheme  for 
carrying  James  to  France,  or  he  used  these  revelations  as  a 
blind  for  Walsingham,  or  he  stood  to  win  on  either  chance. 
In  any  case,  he  died  in  May  of  a  flux  to  which  he  seems  to 
have  been  subject :  he  and  Morton  had  both  been  very  ill  after 
gorging  themselves  at  a  dinner  of  Lindsay's.  In  his  last  letter, 
recommending  his  children  to  James  (who  befriended  them), 
Lennox  professed  himself  a  Protestant,  which  probably  means 
that  he  thought  James  resolute  in  that  faith.  He  had  said  as 
much  to  Mauvissiere,  the  French  Ambassador  in  London,  and 
Mauvissiere  told  one  Fowler,  a  spy  of  Walsingham's,  who  was 
employed  in  seducing  Archibald  Douglas,  a  prisoner,  from  Mary's 
cause.  Fowler  also  learned  that  Gowrie  was  weary  of  his  charge 
of  James.  He  needed  guards,  could  not  pay  them,  and  Bowes 
could  not  wring  the  money  from  Elizabeth.^'*  At  this  time  the 
Scots  captured  the  Jesuit  Holt,  and  Elizabeth  urged  the  use  of 
the  boot.  To  torture  was  her  peculiar  joy,  but  James  managed 
to  let  Holt  escape.  English  pirates,  as  cruel  as  their  queen, 
caught  and  tortured  the  captain  and  crew  of  a  Scottish  ship, 
The  Grace  of  God,  so  that  "  some  lost  their  thumbs  and  fingers, 
and  some  their  sight  and  hearing."  Yet  the  English  have  always 
blustered  about  the  cruelty  of  the  Spaniards  !  *^ 

In  April  two  envoys  were  sent  from  Scotland  to  Elizabeth : 
one,  Colville,  later  ruined,  and  a  spy,  had  taken  a  great  part 
in  the  Raid  of  Ruthven  ;  the  other,  Colonel  Stewart,  had  acted 
as  agent  between  Mary  and  the  late  Lady  Lennox  after  their 
reconciliation,  and  at  heart  was  Mary's  man.  Stewart  was  to 
consult  Elizabeth  as  to  James's  marriage  and  affairs  in  general  ; 
was  to  pray  that  she  would  resign  to  him  the  Lennox  lands  in 
England;    to  ask   for   ^10,000   in   gold  and    ;^5ooo   a-year;    to 


JAMES   DESERTS   HIS   MOTHER.  29 1 

assent  to  the  ratification  of  the  endless  treaty  between  Mary 
and  the  English  queen,  and  to  inquire  about  James's  right  of 
succession  to  the  English  throne  (April-May  1583).*^  Redress 
for  the  piracies  was  also  mentioned.  Most  desired  was  money 
to  pay  James's  guards  :  Bowes  was  asked  by  Walsingham  to 
lend  it ;  Walsingham  would  give  security  for  repayment.'*''  By 
the  end  of  May  Fowler  could  report  his  success  in  purchasing 
Archibald  Douglas,  who  "was  skilled  in  deciphering."  Archibald 
is  probably  the  person  mentioned  by  Bowes  from  Edinburgh  on 
April  7.  If  so,  he  was  associated  with  Glencairn,  an  untrusty  ally 
of  Gowrie ;  and  the  plan  was  to  bring  Archibald  back  to  Scotland 
as  a  supposed  agent  of  Lennox  (named  in  cipher  "870"),  which 
would  enable  him  to  be  trusted  by,  and  to  betray,  Mainville, 
Huntly,  Glencairn,  and  Montrose.  There  were  difficulties,  as 
Archibald  would  perhaps  be  accused  of  Darnley's  murder,  though 
he  declared  that  Morton's  confession,  implicating  him,  "was  not 
worth  five  shillings."  The  scheme  was  deferred  by  Bowes's 
advice.*^  On  May  29  Colville  and  Stewart  left  London  in  disgust, 
and  the  expense  of  James's  guards  fell  on  Walsingham.  Bowes, 
in  Edinburgh,  foresaw  trouble  :  James,  if  his  requests  were  denied, 
would  revolt  to  Huntly,  Atholl,  and  other  non-English  nobles.^® 

Elizabeth  in  April  had  been  in  one  act  of  her  treaties  with 
Mary :  endless,  and  never  meant  to  end.  She  communicated 
Mary's  offers  through  Bowes  to  James.  The  prince  remarked 
that,  seeing  Elizabeth  and  himself  were  coming  to  terms,  his 
mother  tried  to  throw  this  "bone  to  stick  in  their  teeth."  In 
any  "association"  he  "doubted  some  prejudice  might  come  to 
him " ;  the  association  was  "  tickle  to  his  crown."  In  brief, 
James  suspected  that  Mary  wished  to  share  or  even  monopolise 
his  power,  and  so  held  off  from  the  association.^*'  Elizabeth 
probably  reckoned  that  she  held  James  through  his  own  selfish- 
ness, and  therefore  declined  to  yield  the  Lennox  estates  or 
advance  money  for  the  guardsmen,  without  whom  she  might  at 
any  moment  lose  him.  Her  highest  offer  was  a  pension  of 
^2500.  Colville  and  Colonel  Stewart  came  home  in  anger,  and 
Elizabeth  renewed  her  dealings  with  Mary.  But  these  Elizabeth 
never  would  conclude,  and,  whatever  Mary's  crime  as  to  Darnley, 
this  eternal  game  of  cat  and  mouse  excites  pity  and  indignation. 
Meanwhile  James's  dealings  with  Elizabeth,  and  his  Protestantism, 
diverted  Guise  from  his  scheme  of  invading  Scotland.      To  land 


292  JAMES   SHAKES    OFF   THE    RAIDERS. 

an  army  in  England  seemed  more  feasible.  Nothing  was  feasible : 
all  had  to  be  managed  by  messengers,  whom  EHzabeth  was  cer- 
tain to  trap  and  torture.  The  aspect  of  politics  was  altered 
again  when,  after  the  failure  of  the  mission  to  EHzabeth,  James 
freed  himself  from  Gowrie,  who  was  heartily  sick  of  his  charge. 

The  escape  was  managed  thus  :  Patrick  Adamson,  Archbishop  of 
St  Andrews,  was  of  course  much  suspected  and  detested  by  the 
preachers  and  the  Brethren.  But  Patrick  had  a  house  of  sufificient 
strength,  the  Castle  of  St  Andrews,  which  Archbishop  Hamilton 
had  rebuilt  after  its  ruin  by  the  French  guns  that  avenged  the 
Cardinal.  Here  since  the  General  Assembly  of  April  1582 
Patrick  had  "  lain  like  a  tod  [fox]  in  a  hole,  diseased  of  a  great 
feditie,  as  he  called  his  disease."  Patrick,  not  being  a  godly  man, 
had  protected,  and  later  given  up,  a  poor  woman  accused  of  witch- 
craft :  she  was  said  to  have  transferred  his  malady  to  a  white  pony, 
and  the  historian  of  the  Kirk  relates  with  glee  that  she  was  after- 
wards burned  at  Edinburgh.^^  It  was  to  Patrick's  "hole,"  the 
Castle  of  St  Andrews,  that  James  now  fled.  Sir  James  Melville 
was  concerned  in  the  escape,  James  appointed,  he  tells  us,  a 
convention  at  St  Andrews,  inviting  Huntly  (not  the  partner  in 
Darnley's  murder,  who  was  long  dead),  Montrose,  Argyll,  Craw- 
ford, Rothes,  March,  and  Gowrie,  who  is  represented  as  having 
come  round  to  James's  cause.  He  was  certainly  thought  a  waverer 
by  Angus  and  otheis  of  his  party,  was  weary  of  politics,  and  was 
building  and  decorating  "a  fair  gallery"  at  Gowrie  House  in  Perth, 
a  gallery  destined  to  be  fatal  to  his  line.  The  king  sent  Colonel 
Stewart  to  call  in  Sir  James  Melville,  who  was  tired  of  Courts,  but 
visited  James  at  Falkland  (June  27).  Sir  James  argued  that  the 
king  was  now  practically  free  and  had  better  let  bygones  be  by- 
gones. This  he  promised  to  do,  but  he  must  first  be  free  indeed. 
He  therefore  rode  to  his  great-uncle,  the  Earl  of  March,  who  vras 
living  in  St  Andrews,  and  met  him,  with  other  gentlemen,  at 
Dairsie  on  the  Eden.  At  St  Andrews  James  lodged  in  the  Novum 
Hospitium,  where  the  old  gateway  stands.  The  place  was  very  in- 
secure, the  mob  was  not  to  be  trusted,  and  Melville  induced  the 
king  to  move  into  the  Bishop's  castle,  which  he  did  in  the  more 
haste  as  armed  men  were  waiting  to  seize  him  in  the  abbey  gardens. 
Next  day  James  was  again  in  peril,  as  the  lords  of  the  English 
party  arrived  in  arms.  However,  the  Provost  mustered  a  force, 
aided  by  the  loyal  lairds  and  Gowrie. 


JAMES   A   FREE   KING.  293 

On  the  morrow  James  was  master  of  the  castle,  and  a  bitter  day 
must  that  have  been  for  Andrew  Melville,  the  Principal  of  St 
Andrews.  The  king  proclaimed  an  amnesty,  went  to  Ruthven, 
dined  with  Gowrie,  and  was  apparently  reconciled  to  him.  But 
Arran  (the  Colonel  Stewart  who  dragged  down  Morton)  returned 
presently  to  power  and  favour.  This  boded  evil.^-  The  preachers 
met  James  at  Falkland;  one  or  two  behaved  with  tact,  another 
threatened :  "  there  was  never  one  yet  in  this  realm,  in  chief 
authority,  that  ever  prospered  after  the  ministers  began  to  threaten 
them."  ^^  James  smiled ;  he  was  to  prove  an  exception  to  the 
rule. 

His  intentions,  as  publicly  proclaimed,  were  to  be  "  an  universal 
king  " — that  is,  to  reconcile  parties,  and  to  be  subject  to  no  clique 
of  nobles.  When  a  captive,  he  had  been  compelled  to  express 
acquiescence  in  the  Raid  of  Ruthven,  but  his  proclamations  now 
declared  that  the  parties  to  the  conspiracy  must  seek  "  remissions  " 
for  their  deed.  Such  a  paper  remission  Gowrie  sought  and  obtained, 
thereby  disgusting  his  late  allies.  The  king  spoke  much  of  "  clem- 
ency," which  was  doubly  distrusted.  Many  intrigues  were  being 
woven  which  were  only  in  part  known  even  to  the  preachers. 
Young  Seton  (a  son  of  Mary's  staunch  friend.  Lord  Seton,  and  to 
be  recognised  as  a  brother  of  Catherine  Seton  in  Scott's  'Abbot') 
was  at  Paris  in  July,  dealing  not  with  Guise,  but  with  de  Tassis, 
the  Spanish  Ambassador,  and  hoping  to  secure  religious  tolerance.^* 
Immediately  after  the  affair  at  St  Andrews,  de  Tassis  heard,  from 
an  unnamed  Scots  lord,  that  Sir  Robert  Melville, ^^  a  strong  Marian, 
had  organised  the  business,  and  that  James's  Council,  pending  the 
arrival  of  Arran,  were  Argyll,  Montrose,  Rothes,  Marischal  (Keith, 
founder  of  Marischal  College),  and  Gowrie,  "  by  whose  advice  he  is 
influenced."  James  wanted  Mainville  to  return,  and  wanted  money 
from  Henri  HI.^^  But  Henri  HI.  had  no  money  to  give,  and  was 
on  ill  terms  with  Guise,  who  needed  a  foreign  war,  and  was  working 
on  Philip  to  lend  men  and  ships,  and  with  the  Pope  to  give  money, 
for  the  release  of  Mary  and  for  the  restoration  of  Catholicism  in 
England.  It  was  known  to  the  preachers  that  the  young  laird 
of  Fintrie,  a  Catholic,  later  martyred,  and  a  relation  of  Archbishop 
Beaton,  was  in  Scotland,  and  probably  Fintrie  carried  a  curious 
letter  from  James  himself  to  Guise,  of  which  a  copy  was  forwarded 
to  Phihp. 

This   letter,  from  Falkland,  August   19,  would   have  shown  the 


294  JAMES'S   LETTER   TO   GUISE. 

ministers  that  their  distrust  of  James's  relations  with  Guise,  "the 
bloody  persecutor  of  the  saints,"  was  more  than  justified.  The  king 
thanked  God  for  preserving  the  life  of  Guise,  who  had  aided  Mary 
and  James  in  their  utmost  need.  If  James  possesses  the  splendid 
qualities  attributed  to  him  by  Mainville  (and  he  does  not  disclaim 
them),  he  owes  it  to  his  Guise  blood.  He  hopes  to  follow  in  the 
footsteps  of  the  House  of  Lorraine.  He  has  achieved  his  free- 
dom, "  as  it  were  in  sport,"  so  adroit  is  he,  "  and  is  ever  ready  to 
avenge  himself  when  the  opportunity  occurs.''  That  was  precisely 
the  opinion  entertained  by  the  enterprisers  of  the  Raid  of  Ruthven. 
He  approves  of  Guise's  project.  Acting  on  Mainville's  advice,  he 
has,  for  love  of  Guise,  allowed  the  Jesuit,  Holt,  to  escape,  a  cir- 
cumstance which,  in  treating  with  Ehzabeth  and  the  preachers, 
he  discreetly  veiled.  People  were  always  escaping,  he  said  ;  there 
was  nothing  "uncouth"  in  that.  But  James  did  not  profess  any 
inclination  to  join  the  Roman  Church,  without  which  Philip  would 
do  nothing  for  him.  He  had  mentioned  all  this  only  to  Morton 
(Maxwell)  and  to  Gowrie!  Now,  if  Gowrie  was  not  Protestant,  who 
was  ?     He  ran  too  many  double  courses. ^^ 

James  now  issued  a  proclamation  expressing  his  mind  as  to  the 
Raid  of  Ruthven,  and  calling  Durie  with  other  preachers  to  St 
Andrews  he  asked  them  what  they  thought  of  it.  They  answered 
ambiguously :  he  had  better  consult  the  General  Assembly.^^  At 
the  end  of  the  month  Mar  and  the  Master  of  Glamis — he  of  the 
impertinently  obtruded  leg — were  placed  in  ward.  Early  in  Sep- 
tember Walsingham,  much  against  his  will,  was  sent  down  by  Eliz- 
abeth. He  could  do  nothing  with  James,  and  advised  Elizabeth  to 
slip  at  him  the  Hamiltons,  then  exiles  in  England.  He  also  left  a 
plot  against  James,  to  explode  when  he  had  returned  to  England ; 
but  the  plot  was  dropped.^^  Arran  had  discovered  it,  and  reinforced 
the  guards.  Walsingham  remonstrated  about  Holt's  escape.  James 
replied  that  he  would  have  extradited  Holt,  an  English  subject,  if 
Elizabeth  had  handed  over  Archibald  Douglas,  "who  is  known  to 
be  guilty  of  my  father's  murder."  (James's  filial  feehngs  did  not 
prevent  him  from  accepting,  soon  after,  the  services  of  Archibald, 
and  his  father's  murderer  was  employed  to  destroy  his  mother.)^** 
He  denied  to  Walsingham  what  he  had  professed  to  Guise,  his 
connivance  at  Holt's  escape.  Such  had  education  and  environment 
made  James  at  the  age  of  seventeen. 

The  General  Assembly  met  in  October.     They  grumbled  about 


THROCKMORTON  S   PLOT.  295 

the  reception  of  young  Fintrie,  about  favour  shown  to  David 
Chalmers,  who,  says  Buchanan,  had  abetted  the  amours  of  Bothwell 
and  Mary.  The  Assembly  held  him  suspected  of  Darnley's  murder, 
in  which,  apparently,  a  large  part  of  the  population  had  been  en- 
gaged. The  Assembly  growled  at  the  scarcity  of  witch-burnings, 
and  made  other  more  legitimate  complaints.  James  was  later  to  do 
their  will  on  witches,  and  to  do  it  with  a  zest.  The  best  part  of 
James's  reply  dealt  with  the  pretensions  of  the  preachers  to  dictate 
his  choice  of  ministers,  and  to  oppose  his  friendly  relations  with 
foreign  Powers,  "  from  which  no  princes  or  commonwealth  in  the 
world  abstaineth,  although  being  diverse  in  religion."  The  Assembly 
now  "  delated  "  Aristotle  and  other  classical  authors  of  heterodox 
opinions,  to  the  number  of  twenty.  Tutors  at  the  universities 
must  "  evince  their  errors,  and  admonish  the  youth  to  eschew  the 
same."  ^^ 

On  November  13  Lennox's  son,  a  boy,  arrived  from  France  and 
was  taken  into  favour,  rising  to  ducal  rank.  A  convention  at 
Edinburgh,  of  December  7,  stamped  as  traitors  such  Ruthven 
plotters  as  would  not  repent.  Now  the  old  Act  approving  of  the 
Raid  was  deleted.^^  Angus  was  banished  beyond  Spey ;  Mar  and 
the  Master  of  Glamis  thought  of  retreating  to  Ireland,  others  to 
France  ;  Gowrie  remained  at  Court.  He  had  failed  to  arrange  a 
revolutionary  plot  with  Mar  and  Bowes,  or  had  refused.  James 
knew  of  a  plot  to  kidnap  him  while  hunting,  planned  by  Angus 
(December  29).^     "The  matter  is  dissembled  for  the  present." 

The  new  Bothwell,  Francis,  son  of  a  sister  of  the  wicked  earl, 
was  beginning  his  career  of  storms  by  quarrelling  with  Arran.  The 
turbulent  John  Durie,  however,  was  subdued  :  threats  of  setting  his 
head  on  a  spike  produced  a  recantation  from  him  in  the  pulpit.^* 
Mary's  influence,  Bowes  believed,  wholly  governed  James.^^  But  at 
this  time  was  captured  Francis  Throckmorton,  an  agent  in  Guise's 
great  doomed  project  of  an  invasion  of  England  ;  and  that  enter- 
prise was  to  bring  ruin,  through  Throckmorton's  extorted  con- 
fession, on  many  of  its  devisers.  The  rack,  as  usual,  extracted 
from  the  unhappy  Throckmorton  all  that  he  knew,  and  his  account 
of  an  intended  invasion  alarmed  the  advisers  of  Elizabeth.  They 
were  really  in  no  great  danger  :  Philip  required  much  more  urging 
before  he  would  move,  and  the  Pope  was  stingy.  Events  were  to 
prove  that  England  could  guard  her  own.  But  it  seemed  desirable 
to  win  over  James.     That  worthy  messenger,  Archibald   Douglas, 


296  JAMES  WRITES   TO  THE   POPE   (1584). 

was  to  be  sent  to  Scotland  to  tell  James  that  Elizabeth  would  recog- 
nise him  (January  23,  1584)."^  But  on  the  very  next  day  Bowes, 
from  Berwick,  informed  Walsingham  of  a  new  plot  of  the  lords  of 
Mary's  party,  while  the  laird  of  Applegarth  accused  Angus  of  a  con- 
spiracy, already  known  to  James,  to  seize  him  in  the  old  way.  Two 
English  emissaries  from  Mary  were  working  in  Scotland ;  Bowes 
could  not  identify,  and  failed  to  kidnap  them,  A  month  later  (Feb- 
ruary 19,  1584)  James  took  the  extraordinary  step  of  writing  to  the 
Pope  as  well  as  to  Guise.  Arran,  "that  terrible  heretic,"  was  at 
this  time  the  young  king's  chief  adviser,  and  we  are  inclined  to  sus- 
pect that  James,  alarmed  by  the  plots  and  rumours  of  plots,  wrote 
without  Arran's  knowledge.  He  speaks  of  his  gratitude  to  the 
Pope  as  the  friend  of  his  mother,  and  of  his  own  danger  from  evil 
subjects  leagued  with  Elizabeth,  "  with  the  object  of  utterly  ruining 
me."  Unless  aided  by  the  Pope,  James  will  be  forced  "  to  second 
the  design  of  my  greatest  enemies  and  yours,"  "  I  hope  to  be  able 
to  satisfy  your  Holiness  on  all  other  points."^'' 

James  must  have  been  terrified  by  the  plot  of  the  English  party, 
Angus  and  the  rest,  organised  by  Colville  (the  man  of  the  Raid  of 
Ruthven  and  of  the  mission  to  Elizabeth),  who  was  now  in  exile 
at  Berwick,  working  with  Bowes.  Some  bishop,  perhaps  Patrick 
Adamson,  who  had  carried  his  "  feditie  "  to  England  on  a  mission, 
stood  in  the  way,  and  Colville  (March  23)  thought  that  he  should 
be  "  removed."  Up  to  mid-April  "  the  news  was  good,"  said  Col- 
ville, and  on  April  19  Bowes  was  waiting  to  hear  of  the  success  of 
the  plot.  Rothes,  Angus,  Mar,  and  others  were  to  meet  in  Lothian. 
Gowrie  was  loitering  at  Dundee,  ready  to  join  the  rebels  if  they 
succeeded,  to  sail  away  if  they  failed.  He  appears  to  have  been 
trimming.  Certainly  he  was  in  touch  with  Angus  through  Hume  of 
Godscroft.  He  professed  to  James  his  intention  of  sailing  abroad, 
but  he  lingered,  watching  events,  and  equally  distrusted  by  both 
parties,  Elizabeth  was  being  pressed  to  support  the  party  which  she 
had  so  often  deserted,  when  instead  of  joyous  news  of  the  success 
of  the  blow  to  be  dealt  on  April  18,  Bowes  received  evil  intellig- 
ence. Arran  knew  everything,  and  had  only  waited  till  the  head  of 
the  tortoise  peered  forth  from  the  shell,  Gowrie  was  taken,  after 
resistance,  at  Dundee,  by  Colonel  Stewart.  The  head  had  peered 
out ;  Mar,  Angus,  and  the  Master  of  Glamis  had  slipped  back  to 
Scotland.  After  Cowrie's  arrest  they  seized  Stirling  Castle,  Within 
two  days  James  and  Arran  were  marching  against  them  at  the  head 


PLOT   AND   EXECUTION    OF   COWRIE.  297 

of  12,000  men.  The  leaders  ran  away  and  crossed  the  Border. 
Bowes  confessea  that  he  had  blundered,  and  ought  to  be  dismissed 
from  service.  A  correspondent  of  Davison,  who  was  on  a  mission 
to  James,  "  had  thought  better  of  Randolph  and  Bowes,"  so  that 
old  Randolph  seems  to  have  had  a  finger  in  the  fiasco.  Angus  and 
Mar  were  told  by  Walsingham  that  Elizabeth  would  do  her  best  for 
them.  It  was  the  old  story  of  a  rising  fostered  and  betrayed  by 
Elizabeth.  The  preachers  fled  with  the  rest.  Mr  Andrew  Hay, 
Mr  James  Lawson,  Mr  Walter  Balcanquhal,  with  Mr  John  Davidson, 
that  satiric  poet,  went  to  join  Mr  Andrew  Melville  across  the  Tweed. 
Elizabeth  had  recently  hanged  a  considerable  number  of  priests, 
and  Arran  was  very  capable  of  doing  what  Morton  said  needed  to 
be  done  to  preachers. 

It  does  not  seem  that  the  Brethren  fled  before  the  execution  of 
Gowrie.  On  May  27  Davison  from  Berwick  wrote  to  Walsingham 
an  account  of  the  infamous  trick  by  which  Arran  brought  Gowrie 
to  the  block.  The  story  is  a  partisan  statement ;  it  is  told  by 
Calderwood,  but  it  is  much  in  harmony  with  a  manuscript  account 
of  the  trial. ^®  Mr  Tytler  accepts  the  narrative  sent  by  Davison  to 
Walsingham  on  May  27.  It  is  to  the  effect  that  Arran  and  Sir 
Robert  Melville  visited  Gowrie,  and  Arran  cajoUed  him  into  writing 
a  letter  of  confession  to  James,  so  as  to  secure  an  interview.  Arran 
promised  that  this  letter,  "  his  own  dittay,"  or  indictment,  as  he 
said,  should  not  be  used  against  him.  It  was  used,  and  Gowrie 
was  executed,  behaving  with  great  resolution.  If  the  story  from 
the  same  sources — that  Sir  Robert  Melville  stood  as  Gowrie's 
friend  at  the  block,  and  with  Stewart  of  Traquair  saw  to  his  burial — 
is  true,  Melville  can  scarcely  have  been  deeply  involved  in  the 
treachery  of  Arran,  if  treachery  there  was,  though  Melville  could 
play  a  double  game  in  diplomacy.  At  the  time  of  Mary's  capture 
at  Carberry  (June  1567)  he  certainly  dealt  both  for  the  lords,  his 
employers,  and  for  Mary,  to  whom  he  was  devoted.  But  we  have 
no  reason  to  think  that  he  would  betray  a  friend  like  Gowrie,  or 
that,  if  he  did,  Gowrie  would  treat  him  as  a  friend  on  the  scaffold. 

Gowrie  had  been  in  the  Riccio  murder.  He  had  helped  Lindsay 
to  extort  Mary's  abdication  at  Lochleven.  According  to  Nau,  he 
had  insulted  her  by  his  lust  in  the  same  castle.  Throckmorton  re- 
ported at  the  moment  (July  14,  1567)  that  Ruthven  was  removed 
from  the  charge  of  the  queen,  "  as  he  began  to  show  great  favour  to 
her  and  gave  her  intelligence."  *^     Mary  revealed  his  conduct,  and 


298  FLIGHT  OF  THE   PREACHERS. 

showed  a  letter  of  his  to  Lady  Douglas  of  Lochlev^n,  says  Nau,  so 
the  laird  of  Lochleven  had  him  recalled.  The  evidence  of  Throck- 
morton and  Nau  tends  to  the  same  point.  Gowrie  had  imprisoned 
his  prince  once,  had  been  pardoned,  had  been  trusted  even  as  to  the 
king's  dealings  with  Guise,  and  yet  had  been  engaged  in  this  latest 
plot.  But  the  method  by  which  his  conviction  was  secured  was 
deemed  "Machiavellian,"  and  revenge  may  have  been  the  motive  of 
his  son's  conspiracy  in  1600. 

We  have  perhaps  no  right  to  connect  Andrew  Melville  with  the 
conspiracy  now  crushed  by  the  death  of  Gowrie.  It  was  earlier,  on 
February  15,  1584,  that  Melville  was  summoned  before  the  Privy 
Council.  He  was  accused  of  seditious  sermons  and  prayers,  and 
explained  that  his  words  had  been  misunderstood.  He  claimed  to 
be  tried,  in  the  first  instance,  before  a  court  of  the  Kirk.  This 
"would,  of  course,  mean  an  acquittal,  and  a  secular  court  might  fear 
to  quash  the  verdict  of  the  spiritual  judges.  He  also  protested  that 
his  accuser,  one  Stewart,  was  a  private  enemy.  After  giving  in  his 
"  declinature  "  he  brandished  a  Hebrew  Bible,  and  asked  if  any  one 
could  condemn  him  out  of  that.  He  was  practically  found  guilty  of 
contempt  of  court,  and  ordered  to  go  to  prison  in  Blackness.  "  He 
made  as  if  he  intended  to  obey  the  sentence,"  says  his  biographer, 
Dr  M'Crie,  but  he  fled  to  Berwick — not  without  breach  of  parole,  as 
some  may  conceive.  Probably  he  cannot  fairly  be  charged  with  re- 
fusing, as  an  ordained  minister,  to  submit  to  a  secular  court  in  the 
case  of  a  charge  of  seditious  language.  His  plea  rather  was  that  he 
should  be  heard,  in  the  first  instance,  by  spiritual  judges.''''^  But  then 
they  would  give  a  verdict  in  his  favour,  and  how  could  a  secular  court 
reverse  the  doom  of  the  prophets  ? 

As  for  the  other  preachers  in  exile,  some,  it  seems,  had  withdrawn 
after  Melville's  flight,  weeks  before  the  attack  on  Stirling.  The 
others  looked  only  for  "  bloodie  butcherie."''^  In  these  distressing 
circumstances  a  General  Assembly,  which  was  asked  to  reprobate 
the  Raid  of  Ruthven,  broke  up  without  doing  business.  It  was 
when  Mar  held  Stirling,  and  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Brethren,  but 
the  occasion  was  awkward,  and  the  Brethren  did  not  commit  them- 
selves, "  awaiting  a  better  opportunity."  "- 

In  this  condition  of  the  Kirk  Patrick  Adamson  returned  from 
England.  He  had  bestowed  his  "  feditie  "  on  Mendoza,  before  that 
ambassador  was  dismissed  after  Throckmorton's  confessions.  "  He 
haunted  also  Mr  Archibald  Douglas  his  companie,  and  sindrie  other 


TH£    KIRK   OVERTHROWN   (1584).  299 

suspect  places."  He  bilked  a  tailor  of  jQ'].  He  borrowed  a  gown 
from  the  Bishop  of  London,  but  did  not  send  it  back  to  that  prelate. 
He  did  something  even  more  remarkable,  for  which  he  was  batoned 
by  the  porter  at  the  palace/^  According  to  Calderwood,  Adamson 
must  have  acted  like  a  less  decorous  Archbishop  Sharp. 

The  proceedings  of  James  and  Arran,  on  Adamson's  return,  in- 
dicated what  proved  to  be  the  permanent  bent  of  the  young  king. 
France,  in  reply  to  Lord  Seton,  had  advised  James  to  proceed  "  by 
the  gentle  way  "  in  resettling  his  realm."*  The  advice,  though  dis- 
appointing, seemed  excellent,  but  how  was  it  practicable  ?  To  pardon 
all  the  lords  conspirators  would  only  breed  new  conspiracies.  To 
permit  the  unbridled  licence  of  the  pulpit  was  no  way  of  bringing 
peace.  Moreover,  Arran  wanted  the  spoils  of  Gowrie,  the  Douglases, 
and  the  Hamiltons,  who  had  been  hanging  about  the  Border  waiting 
for  the  success  of  the  Raid  of  Stirling.  James  showed,  in  these 
circumstances,  his  despotic  tendency,  his  zeal  for  Episcopacy,  his 
determination  to  be  the  head  of  the  Kirk  as  well  as  of  the  State. 
Without  dominating  the  Kirk,  indeed,  his  headship  of  the  State, 
and  even  the  State  itself,  were  futile.  The  time  was  not  ripe  for 
public  opinion  to  take  its  due  share  in  the  commonwealth,  by 
parliamentary  representation  and  the  open  discussion  of  the  plat- 
form and  the  press.  The  press  was  represented  by  clandestine 
pamphlets  and  placards ;  the  modern  House  of  Commons  had  its 
parallel  in  the  General  Assembly,  but  that,  with  the  pulpit,  was  one- 
sided, and  rested  on  the  survival  of  spiritual  privileges  and  pre- 
tensions, and  on  texts  from  ancient  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  public 
opinion  of  the  puritan  middle  classes  found  voice  in  sermons,  but 
these  perpetually  trenched  on  sedition.  Each  change  of  Govern- 
ment was  the  result  of  armed  conspiracy,  and  impUed  executions 
and  forfeitures. 

The  course  which  James  took  for  reinforcing  the  State  was  arbi- 
trary, unconstitutional,  and  (in  the  eyes  of  the  preachers  and  the 
Brethren)  blasphemous.  But  what  course  was  he  to  take  ?  On 
the  return  of  Adamson  a  Parliament  was  held  at  Edinburgh  on 
May  18-22.^^  Naturally,  and  as  usual,  the  Opposition  did  not 
attend.  The  Lords  of  the  Articles  were  sworn  to  secrecy.  The 
preachers  were  not  represented.  In  four  days  the  Parliament  un- 
made much  of  the  Reformation  which  in  1560  a  convention  had 
made  as  rapidly,  and  with  as  little  discussion.  Lawson  and  Bal- 
canquhal,  from  their  refuge  in  Berwick,  complained  of  the  revolu- 


300  "THE   BLACK  ACTS." 

tionary  speed ;  but  it  was  the  usual  method  in  Scof-.ish  parliamentary 
proceedings  (June  2).'''*^  The  Rev.  David  Lindsay,  sent  by  the 
brethren  to  inquire  and  remonstrate,  vi'as  hurried  to  Blackness. 

The  Ruthven  Raid  was  again  declared  treason.  James  and  the 
Council,  by  the  "Black  Acts"  as  they  were  called,  were  to  be 
judges  in  all  causes,  or  to  approve  of  the  judges ;  and  declinature 
of  jurisdiction  (as  by  Andrew  Melville)  was  to  be  held  treason. 
There  was  to  be  no  more  meddling  with  State  affairs  in  sermons 
under  penalty  of  treason,  no  General  Assemblies  without  James's 
express  licence.  Episcopacy  was  established.  The  posterity  of 
Gowrie  was  disinherited.  The  excommunication  of  Montgomery 
was  annuUed.'^^  Angus,  Mar,  Glamis,  and  others  were  forfeited. 
Colonel  William  Stewart  was  made  Captain  of  the  Guard.  Davison 
was  in  Edinburgh  and  reported  these  proceedings  to  Walsingham 
(May  23-27).  James  had  now  got  what  he  really  wanted,  if  he 
could  keep  it,  and  consequently  he  was  at  once  independent  of 
Guise,  Spain,  and  the  Pope,  and  had  shown  them,  by  establishing 
his  supremacy  in  a  Church  after  his  own  heart,  that  they  could  not 
hope  for  his  conversion. 

Having  put  his  foot  on  the  neck  of  the  Kirk,  James  could  no 
longer  be  expected  even  to  promise  to  be  converted  to  the  Church. 
He  was  in  the  desirable  position  of  being  his  own  pontiff,  like 
Elizabeth,  after  the  Parliament  of  May,  and  this  would  bring  him 
closer  to  England.  For  his  mother's  freedom  he  had  no  desire,  far 
otherwise.  James  had  only  needed  his  mother's  aid,  as  he  had 
needed  that  of  the  Pope.  The  more  noted  preachers  fled,  and 
"  flyted  "  from  Berwick  against  Patrick  Adamson.  Both  sides  put  in 
hits,  and  we  learn  from  Adamson  that  the  General  Assemblies  were 
called  "Mackintosh's  Courts,"  which  we  may  conceive  to  have  been 
unruly.'^^  Ministers  were  compelled  to  subscribe  a  submission  to 
their  ordinary  or  withdraw.  Lawson  and  Balcanquhal  replied  at  vast 
length.  What,  had  God  not  given  to  the  preachers  "  the  keys  of 
binding  and  losing,"  and  was  a  mere  Parliament  to  take  possession 
of  these  instruments,  "and  overpass  Uzziah  in  usurping  the  office  of 
the  priests  "  ?  '^^  "  New  presbyter,"  we  see,  "  is  but  old  priest  writ 
large,"  and  this  pretension,  at  the  root  of  a  century  of  war  and 
broil,  needed  to  be  put  down. 

The  ladies  joined  the  bicker.  Mrs  Janet  Lawson  {tiie  Guthrie) 
and  Mrs  Margaret  Balcanquhal  [nee  Marjoribanks)  rushed  into  the 
fray  with  a  long  letter.     They  quoted  Latin,  they  cited  Chaucer, 


NOTES.  301 

they  called  Adamson's  style  metallic  ("  hard  iron  style ").  They 
said,  "You  lie  in  your  throat!"  They  called  Episcopacy  "  your 
new-devised  Popedom."  They  denied  that  the  Kirk  had  threatened 
to  excommunicate  the  king.^*^ 

These  were  remarkable  ladies,  if  their  logic,  their  Latin,  and 
their  manners  were  all  their  own.  But  we  are  now  entered  on  that 
deadlock  between  Kirk  and  State  which  never  ended  till,  wearied 
and  worn,  the  Kirk  practically  surrendered  to  the  Prince  of  Orange. 
Later,  Craig  told  the  bullying  Arran  that  he  "  should  be  cast  down 
from  his  high  horse  of  pride."  That  was  an  easy  prediction,  but 
Calderwood  thinks  it  was  fulfilled  "when  James  Douglas  of  Park- 
head  thrust  Arran  off  his  horse  with  a  spear  and  slew  him."  ^^  Mr 
Froude  spares  a  compliment  to  the  "second-sight"  of  the  preachers. 
Indeed  their  "  subliminal  premonitions "  were  ever  part  of  their 
power  with  the  populace. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER   XI. 


^  Hume  Brown,  ii.  169,  186.  ^  Calderwood,  iii.  306,  307, 

*  Calderwood,  iii.  385,  393.  ^  Privy  Council  Register,  i.  640. 
^  Calderwood,  iii.  415;  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  Hi.  105,  138. 

^  M  'Crie's  Andrew  Melville,  i.  202. 

^  Calderwood,  iii.  531,  532.  ^  LabanoflF,  v.  231,  237. 

*  For  example,  in  the  Parliament  of  November  1581,  specially  confirming  the 
Act  of  Mary's  last  Parliament  of  April  1567  (Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  210). 

^^  Calderwood,  iii.  594,  595. 

^1  Mary  to  Mendoza,  January  14,  1582,  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  205,  206. 

12  Watts,  apparently,  was  sent  "before  September"  1581,  while  on  September 
7  Mendoza  writes  to  Philip  that  the  six  lords  will  "send  a  person  of  understand- 
ing who  was  brought  up  in  Scotland"  ('Edinburgh  Review,'  vol.  187,  p.  324; 
Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  170).  Apparently  Father  Persons  sent  Watts,  the  six 
lords  sent  some  one  else. 

^^  Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  1S7,  p.  326. 

"  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  194,  195. 

^®  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  285-288. 

^^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  320. 

^^  Spanish  .State  Papers,  iii.  330,  331. 

^8  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  349,  350. 

^^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  351. 

2''  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  371.  21  Calderwood,  v.  594. 

-^  Calderwood,  iii.  579,  580.  23  Calderwood,  iii.  597. 

^  Calderwood,  iii.  623.  25  Tytler,  iv.  47.     1864. 

-®  Calderwood,  iii.  663,  664.  ^7  Bowes,  pp.  176-178. 


302  NOTES. 

-^  See  Calderwood,  iii.  643,  for  another  version.     Cf.  Spottiswoode,  ii.  290. 

'^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  407;  Froude,  xi.  283.      1875. 

'"  Calderwood,  iii.  637-640.  ^^   Bowes,  p.  181. 

^-  Calderwood,  iii.  644.  ^  Thorpe,  i.  426. 

**  Also  Bowes  to  Cecil  ;  Bowes,  p.  1S2. 

■*  Hume  Brown,  ii.  192.  *^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  399. 

^  Mary  to  Cliateauneuf,  December  8,  15S5  ;  Labanoff,  vi.  239;  Spanish 
Calendar,  iii.  400;  Spottiswoode,  ii.  311,  312. 

•'^  Bowes,  pp.  267,  268.  ^^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  438. 

*>  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  438,  439.  *^  Calderwood,  iii.  674. 

••-  Bowes,  pp.  236,  240,  253,  265.  ^  Teulet,  ii.  538-546. 

•"  Thorpe,  pp.  437,  439.     March- April  15S3. 

■*■'  James  to  Elizabeth,  April  I  ;  Thorpe,  i.  438.  ^^  Thorpe,  i.  440. 

'*''  Thorpe,  i.  443.  ^  Bowes,  pp.  404-406  ;  Thorpe,  i.  446. 

*^  Thorpe,  i.  445.  ^  Bowes,  pp.  425-431. 

^  Calderwood,  iii.  716.  ^^  M'Crie's  Melville,  i.  284-291. 

^^  Calderwood,  iii.  718. 

*^  Teulet,  iii.  352-355  ;  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  487,  488. 

^•'  See  a  letter  from  St  Andrews  to  Mainville,  July  13,  Spanish  State  Papers, 
iii.  48S-491. 

^  Teulet,  iii.  355-361. 

'^  Teulet,  iii.  362-365  ;  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  502,  503. 

^*  Calderwood,  iii.  722,  723.  ^^  Thorpe,  i.  458,  459. 

^  Spottiswoode,  ii.  303.  ^^  Calderwood,  iii.  731-747. 

^■-  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  330,  331. 

^  Bowes  to  Walsingham  ;  Thorpe,  i.  464. 

^  Thorpe,  i.  464.  ^^  Thorpe,  i.  465. 

"^  Thorpe,  i.  466.  ^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  518,  519. 

^  Caligula,  C  viii.  fol.  29.  The  references  for  the  plot  and  its  failure  are  in  the 
documents  calendared  by  Thorpe,  i.  466-470.  The  Bannatyne  Miscellany,  i, 
91-107  ;  Spottiswoode,  ii.  309-314.     Papers  relating  to  William,  Earl  of  Gowrie. 

^^  Bain,  ii.  350  ;  Xau,  p.  59. 

"'  There  is  a  disquisition  on  the  point  in  M'Crie's  'Andrew  Melville,'  i. 
286-310(1819). 

'^^  Calderwood,  iv.  44.  "^  Calderwood,  iv.  37. 

^  Calderwood,  iv.  49-62.  ^*  Teulet,  ii.  659. 

"  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  290  et  ?eq.  "®  Calderwood,  iv.  73. 

"^  Spottiswoode,  ii.  314,  315  ;   Calderwood,  iv.  62-64  ;  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  296. 

^8  Calderwood,  iv.  87.  "^  Calderwood,  iv.  99. 

**  Calderwood,  iv.  126-141.  ^^  Calderwood,  iv.  199. 


303 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    END    OF    MARY    STUART.       THE    TRUTH    ABOUT   THE 
MASTER    OF    GRAY. 

1584-1587. 

The  result  of  the  execution  of  Gowrie ;  of  the  exile  of  Angus, 
Mar,  and  the  Master  of  Glamis ;  of  the  flight  to  England  of  the 
more  extreme  of  the  preachers,  and  of  the  restoration  of  royal 
authority  with  that  of  Episcopacy,  was  to  leave  James  in  his 
favourite  position  of  "free  king"  (May  1584).  The  freedom,  how- 
ever, was  merely  subjection  to  his  favourite  Minister,  Arran,  with 
his  aivaricious  wife,  who  ran  a  career  of  rapine  unlikely  long  to 
endure.  James,  having  attained  what  he  wanted  in  the  way  of 
religion — namely,  control  over  the  Kirk — was  no  longer  tempted 
to  dally  with  Guise  and  the  Pope,  who  could  only  do  great  things 
for  him  at  the  price  of  his  change  of  creed.  There  was  probably 
no  moment  when  James  really  contemplated  return  to  the  ancient 
faith,  and  he  had  a  dread  of  foreign  aid,  as  dangerous  to  his  own 
mdependence  He  knew  his  subjects  too  well,  and  was  too  proud 
of  the  via  media  discovered  by  his  own  theological  acumen,  to 
adopt  Catholicism.  At  the  same  moment  the  Catholic  Powers, 
from  Philip  of  Spain  to  Guise,  slackened  in  their  eagerness  to 
assist  him,  and  the  discovery  of  Throckmorton's  plot  to  kill 
Elizabeth,  with  his  execution  later,  depressed  the  English  Catholics, 
on  whom  James  began  to  see  that  he  could  not  depend  as  the 
means  of  securing  for  him  the  English  succession.  All  these  con- 
siderations inclined  him  to  break  off  the  long-contemplated  asso- 
ciation with  his  mother,  to  leave  her  to  her  fate,  and  to  rely  on 
Elizabeth.  This  part  of  James's  reign,  the  space  of  about  a  year 
and  a  half  in  which  Arran  held  power,  was  of  very  evil  omen.     It 


304      CECIL   SCHEMES   TO   SEPARATE   JAMES    FROM    MARY. 

was  really  a  kind  of  reign  of  terror.  Ministers  were  persecuted 
merely  because  they  prayed  for  their  exiled  brethren.  Hume  of 
Argathy  and  his  brother  were  executed  for  communicating  with 
one  of  the  exiles  on  a  matter  of  private  business.^  Rewards  were 
offered  to  informers,  and  Douglas  of  Mains  and  Stewart  of  Drum- 
quhassel  were  later  executed  (1585)  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy, 
which  was  believed  to  be  derived  from  an  informer  in  collusion 
with  the  Government,  while  Edmonstone  of  Duntreath  was  to 
confess,  falsely,  to  being  concerned  in  the  plot,  and  was  to  be 
pardoned.  Though  many  of  these  misdeeds  may  have  been  due 
to  Arran's  initiative,  the  king  was  no  longer  a  child.  His  per- 
secution of  the  preachers  took  forms  which  he  was  to  renew, 
deliberately,  in  his  maturity.  Already  he  was  playing  the  tyrant 
as  opportunity  served,  and  unendurable  as  spiritual  tyranny  is,  it 
was  matched  in  odiousness,  or  excelled  by  the  conduct  of  the 
king. 

AVhile  he  waged  a  war  of  pamphlets  and  letters  with  the  banished 
preachers,  especially  with  James  Melville,  who  was  with  the  exiled 
lords  at  Newcastle,  he  was  turning  towards  a  league,  or  an  exchange 
of  good  services,  with  England.  The  Spanish  diplomatists  believed 
that  James  was  still  running  their  course,  and  Philip  sent  him  6000 
ducats.^  What  James  and  Arran  desired  above  everything  was 
the  extradition  of  Angus,  Mar,  and  the  rest,  or  at  least  their  ex- 
pulsion from  England.  While  they  dwelt  on  the  frontier,  and 
paraded  Berwick  in  armed  companies,  now  encouraged,  now  de- 
pressed by  the  caprices  of  Elizabeth,  neither  Arran  nor  James  had 
an  hour  of  security.  The  English  Ambassador  to  Holyrood, 
Davison,  was  intriguing  and  conspiring  with  these  busy  exiles. 
He  was  especially  fomenting  a  plot  to  seize  Edinburgh  Castle,  then 
under  the  command  of  Alexander  Erskine,  of  the  ]\Iar  family. 
This  appears  from  Davison's  letters  to  Walsingham  of  July  4,  July 
14,  and  other  despatches.^  But  while  Walsingham  was  backing 
Davison  in  this  treachery,  and  inclined  to  release  Mary  (who  was 
expected  to  plead  for  the  exiled  lords),  Cecil  was  running  a  "  bye- 
course."  His  idea  was  to  send  Lord  Hunsdon  on  a  private  mission 
to  meet  Arran  at  Faulden  Kirk,  on  the  Border.  The  two  might 
arrange  a  modus  vivendi  with  James,  which  would  leave  Mary  de- 
serted. Hunsdon  had  an  interest  of  his  own,  a  marriage  between 
James  and  a  lady  of  his  family.  Arran  hoped  to  gain  from 
Elizabeth   the  expulsion   or    extradition    of   the   exiled   lords,   and 


"GRAIUS   AN   PARIS?"  305 

security  against  the  sermons  of  the  exiled  preachers.  In  return 
he  could  offer  the  abandonment  of  Mary  by  her  son,  and  a  com- 
plete revelation  of  the  Catholic  conspiracies  against  Elizabeth. 
These  would  be  betrayed  by  the  Master  of  Gray,  a  young  man 
of  great  beauty,  a  favourite  of  James,  a  Catholic,  and  lately  a 
trusted  agent  of  Mary's  at  Paris.  In  the  March  of  1584  the 
Master  had  sheltered  in  his  house  at  Edinburgh  Father  Holt,  the 
captured  Jesuit  whom  James  had  favoured,  conversed  with,  and 
secretly  released.*  At  that  time  the  Master  had  recently  returned 
from  Paris,  where  he  dealt  with  the  Due  de  Guise  in  Mary's  and 
James's  interests.  From  Paris  he  had  earlier  conveyed  "  great  store 
of  chalices,  copes,  and  other  things  belonging  to  the  mass,  to  spread 
abroad  in  Scotland."  ^  But  the  events  which  left  James  a  free 
king,  and  the  delays  of  Philip  and  Guise,  had  turned  the  Master 
into  a  new  course.  He  would  betray  Mary,  ally  himself  with 
Arran,  and,  when  his  hour  came,  would  betray  Arran  in  turn 
and  attain  power. 

While  Cecil  and  Hunsdon  were  thus  working  behind  the  backs  of 
Walsingham  and  Davison,  while  Davison  was  conspiring  against  the 
king  to  whom  he  was  accredited,  while  Arran  was  designing  to 
abandon  Mary,  and  Gray  was  preparing  to  betray  both  of  them,  an 
agent  of  Mary's  was  in  Scotland,  Fontaine,  or  Fontenay,  the  brother 
of  her  French  secretary,  Claude  Nau.  His  mission  was  to  speed 
the  execution  of  Mary's  old  enemy,  Lord  Lindsay,  then  a  prisoner, 
and  to  complete  the  "association"  between  mother  and  son.'' 

Fontaine  at  Holyrood  was  in  an  unenviable  position.  He  and 
his  brother  Claude  Nau,  Mary's  secretary,  were  disliked  and  dis- 
trusted by  the  Due  de  Guise,  and  by  Mary's  ambassador  in  France, 
Archbishop  Beaton.  They  were  no  less  detested  by  the  Master  of 
Gray.  This  astute  young  man  had  obviously  discovered  the  vanity 
of  the  Catholic  plottings  in  which  he  had  been  initiated.  They 
were  mere  cobwebs  spun  by  priests  to  whom  the  foreign  statesmen 
never  seriously  trusted.  Cecil  had  spies  everywhere,  and  on  the 
rack  the  captured  intriguers  told  all  they  knew,  and  more.  Gray 
found  Arran  and  the  king  turning  to  Elizabeth  :  he  turned  with 
them.  James,  to  be  sure,  accepted  a  sword  sent  by  Mary  and 
declared  himself  her  knight.  The  axe,  she  hoped,  would  soon  be 
red  with  the  blood  of  her  old  enemy,  the  Lindsay  of  Carberry  Hill, 
of  Lochleven,  one  of  the  envoys  who  exposed  the  casket  letters. 
But  James's  words  were  only  part  of  his  genial  dissimulation  :  he 

VOL.    II.  u 


306  "WHAT   HAS   YOUR    HOUSE   DONE?" 

was  never  so  affectionate  as  when  he  was  tteacherous ;  he  never 
betrayed  but  with  a  kiss.  Moreover,  Gray  had  taught  him  distrust 
of  Archbishop  Beaton,  and  of  the  Jesuits.  The  Master  told  Fon- 
taine that  Father  Holt,  his  confessor,  had  refused  him  absolution 
unless  he  revealed  all  that  he  knew  of  Mary's  affairs,  and  that  ever 
since  he  had  "  hated  Jesuits  like  the  devil."  The  dislike  was 
mutual.  There  was  a  Father  Edmund  Hay  (he  who  with  others 
advised  Mary  to  exterminate  Murray,  Lethington,  Argyll,  and 
others,  just  before  Darnley's  murder),  and  about  Father  Edmund, 
Gray  later  wrote  thus  to  Archibald  Douglas  :  "  Of  late,  being  in 
Stirling  with  his  majesty,  a  gentleman,  to  you  well  enough  known, 
brought  to  me  a  man  who  confessed  that  Mr  Edmund  Hay,  the 
Jesuit,  had  dealt  with  him  to  take  my  life.  I  offered  him  20 
angels  to  get  trial  of  it,  and  after  I  had  gotten  trial,  500  marks. 
He  received  the  angels,  and  brought  me  a  letter,  whereof  receive 
copy."  Three  schemes  had  been  laid  to  shoot  Gray.  We  hear 
no  more  of  what  was  probably  a  mere  plan  by  the  informant  to  get 
the  angels.^ 

Meanwhile  Gray,  said  Fontaine,  had  been  bought  by  England : 
Fontaine  saw  the  gold,  angels  and  rose  nobles  to  the  value  of 
5000  crowns.  To  Nau,  Fontaine  was  even  more  explicit  than 
to  Mary.  James  was  very  clever,  he  said,  but  immeasurably 
conceited,  timid,  rustic  and  mannerless  in  dress,  bearing,  and  in 
the  society  of  ladies.  Bodily  he  was  weak,  but  not  unhealthy. 
Hunting  and  favourites  were  his  delight ;  in  business  he  was  indol- 
ent, though  capable  of  bursts  of  energy.  "  Like  a  horse  with  a 
turn  of  speed,  but  no  staying  power,"  is  a  modern  rendering  of 
James's  own  description  of  himself.  He  could  never  be  still  in 
one  place,  but  wandered  vaguely  up  and  down  the  room — the 
James  of  '  The  Fortunes  of  Nigel.'  ^ 

The  treachery  of  James  towards  his  mother  might  answer  Mac- 
namara's  question  to  Prince  Charles  (1753),  "What  has  your 
House  done,  sir,  that  Heaven  should  pursue  them  with  a  curse  ? " 
The  callous  dissimulation  and  perfidy  of  James  may  furnisJi-the 
reply.  He  was  now  eighteen :  his  whole  life  had  been  passed 
under  terrorism ;  he  had  again  and  again  been  captured,  his  exist- 
ence threatened ;  menaces  against  him  had  rained  from  the  pulpits. 
He  could  trust  nobody :  the  ambassadors  of  his  cousin  and  god- 
mother, Elizabeth,  had  been,  and  still  were,  his  dangerous  foes. 
Even   Mary  he  could  not  confide  in  :  his  natural  selfishness  was 


PERFIDY   OF  JAMES.  307 

whetted  by  the  prize  of  the  English  succession  :  his  high  notions 
of  prerogative  were  inflamed  by  his  own  condition  of  slavery. 
From  infancy  he  had  resorted  to  dissimulation,  the  weapon  of  the 
weak.  Hunsdon,  later,  wrote,  as  to  James  and  Arran,  that  they 
might  be  trusted  "  yf  they  be  nott  worse  than  dyvelis." 

James,  under  his  wretched  circumstances  and  training,  had  be- 
come what  he  was.  An  orphan,  for  all  that  he  knew  orphaned  by 
his  mother's  hand ;  a  king,  who  wept  when  alone  with  a  kind  of 
gamekeeper,  because,  for  all  that  he  knew,  he  was  the  son  of  an 
Italian  fiddler ;  no  prince  was  ever  so  unhappily  born,  bred,  and 
trained.^  Thus  it  may  be  that,  on  occasion,  James  was  "worse 
than  devils,"  in  Hunsdon's  words.  But  while  Arran  and  Gray 
were  about  betraying  Mary  to  Elizabeth,  Davison,  dining  with 
James,  observed  "  the  poor  young  prince,  who  is  so  distracted  and 
wearied  with  their  importunities,  as  it  pitied  me  to  see  it,  and,  if  I 
be  not  abused,  groweth  full  of  their  fashions  and  behaviours,  which 
he  will  sometimes  discourse  of  in  broad  language,  as  he  that  is  not 
ignorant  how  they  use  him."  ^^^ 

From  June  onwards  the  double  intrigue  (of  Davison  and  the 
partisans  of  the  exiles  to  seize  the  castle ;  of  Cecil,  Arran,  Gray, 
and  Hunsdon  to  sell  Mary)  went  forwards,  enlivened  by  a  noisy 
scene  of  insults  between  Arran  and  Craig,  a  recalcitrant  preacher. 
James  had  issued  a  letter  against  the  fugitive  divines  which  he 
would  have  their  brethren  to  subscribe.  Craig  at  this  time  refused 
(July  4).^^  Towards  the  end  of  the  year  he  and  most  of  the  min- 
isters took  this  test,  with  a  qualification.  On  July  12  one  of  the 
recalcitrants,  Howeson,  was  examined  before  James  at  Falkland. 
He  had  preached  on  the  favourite  text,  "  Whether  it  be  right  in 
the  sight  of  God  to  obey  you  rather  than  God,  judge  ye."  The 
suppressed  premise  on  all  these  occasions  was  that  the  preachers 
were  the  only  judges  of  what  God  commanded,  and  somehow  His 
•commandments  were  almost  always  opposed  to  those  of  the  State. 
"In  case  they  preach  treason  in  the  pulpit,"  they  said,  "the  king, 
the  Assembly,  and  they  to  be  judge  what  they  preach,  and  whether 
it  be  treason  or  not."  The  preachers  were  to  have  the  casting  vote 
as  to  the  treasonable  nature  of  their  own  sermons.^-  In  James, 
and  in  such  men  as  he  was  likely  to  have  for  counsellors,  the  State 
was  poorly  represented.  But  no  human  community  could  endure 
to  be  governed  by  sermons,  and  the  strife  was  not  decided  till  after 
more  than  a  century  of  broils  and  bloodshed. 


308      THE   CASTLE   PLOT   AND   THE   BORDER   MEETING. 

While  these  unseemly  religious  skirmishes  were  going  on,  James 
(July  lo)  appointed  Arran  to  treat  with  Hunsdon,  to  the  disgust  of 
Walsingham,  who  was  deep  in  the  plot  for  holding  the  castle 
against  the  king.^^  The  news  of  the  murder  of  the  Prince  of 
Orange,  which  reached  Edinburgh  at  this  time,  is  said  not  to  have 
been  ungrateful  to  James,  but  it  naturally  increased  the  alarm  of 
Protestants  everywhere.  The  castle  plot  was  presently  detected, 
just  as  Arran  was  about  to  ride  to  meet  Hunsdon.  Arran  from 
Falkland  (August  5)  announced  apparently  another,  and  probably 
false,  plot  to  Hunsdon  in  the  language  of  contemporary  piety  :  we 
give  the  substance  of  the  epistle  below.*  ^*  Calderwood,  the  Prot- 
estant historian,  tells  us  that  Arran  "  made  a  fashion  of  apprehend- 
ing" Drummond  of  Blair,  who  confessed  to  this  conspiracy.  But 
the  castle  scheme,  judging  from  the  letters  of  Davison  and  Wal- 
singham, was  genuine. ^^  The  exiled  lords  denied  their  complicity, 
Alexander  Erskine  was  removed  from  the  command  of  the  castle, 
which  was  put  into  Arran's  hands,  while  Erskine  (whom  Elizabeth 
was  about  to  supply  with  money)  fled  into  England.-"^  On  August 
14  Hunsdon  reported  his  meeting  with  Arran  at  Faulden  Kirk.^'^ 
Arran  was  accompanied  by  nearly  5000  horse,  but  the  English  and 
Scottish  soldiers  were  arrayed  at  a  distance  of  two  miles  from  each 
other,  some  forty  gentlemen  of  each  side  attending  the  chief  nego- 
tiators. Arran's  vows  of  goodwill  were  such  as  Hunsdon  thought 
could  be  trusted,  "unless  he  be  worse  than  a  divell."  The  more 
important  parts  of  Hunsdon's  commission  dealt  with  James's  har- 
bouring of  Jesuits,  such  as  Father  Holt ;  his  intended  "  association  " 
with  Mary,  and  his  intrigues  with  the  Pope,  France,  and  Spain.  As 
to  Jesuits,  Arran  replied  that  Elizabeth  entertained  James's  rebels. 
There  was  no  truth,  he  said,  in  the  story  of  the  association  with 
Mary.     James  had  never  sent  any  message  to  the  Pope,  or  dealt 

*  14  <']vxy  verie  good  Lord, —  .  ,  .  But  the  same  dale  and  in  the  verie 
artickell  of  tyme  of  this  my  formr  conclusion,  God  Almightie,  the  god  onlie  of 
all  truth  moved  the  hart  of  a  wicked  conspirator  to  utter  a  plat  of  Treason 
concluded  betwixt  them  his  Mate  Reabells,  and  some  their  faverours  amongst  us 
wfch  all  their  conclusions  of  their  divelishe  execution  against  his  moste  innocent 
Matie,  and  other  worthie  nobellmen  of  his  Councell,  u]:ipon  the  wcli  sens  that 
same  tyme  I  have  bene  contyneuallie  occupied  in  examynations  and  triall  taking 
and  in  apprhending  some  knowne  giltie.  In  eande  (all  praise  to  God)  so  farr 
have  I  pffited  that  their  same  psons  have  confessed  the  whole  purpose,  and 
subscribed  their  deposicions  themselves,  as  I  hope  by  Gods  Grace  to  lett 
yor  L.  see  shortlie  face  to  face.  .  .  . — Yo'  L.  moste  loving  &c.  Akrane." — 
State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxvi.  No.  12,  i. 


LATIN  AND  GREEK  OF  ARRAN.  309 

with  Spain  or  France.  This  was  a  dehberate  lie,  as  James's  extant 
letters  to  these  Powers  demonstrate.  Arran  promised  to  betray 
Catholic  dealings  with  James  to  the  prejudice  of  Elizabeth. 
Hunsdon  then  asked  that  the  exiled  lords  might  not  be  forfeited 
by  the  approaching  Parliament.  Arran  had  an  easy  task  in  proving 
the  treason  of  these  exiles,  and  the  aid  lent  to  them  by  Bowes, 
Elizabeth's  ambassador.  Only  a  fortnight  ago  their  latest  con- 
spiracy had  been  revealed.  Hunsdon  remarks  that,  but  for  the 
share  of  Erskine  in  the  castle  plot,  he  might  have  procured  the 
pardon  of  Mar,  but  that  James  was  irreconcilable  to  Angus  and 
the  Douglases,  who  held  him  in  deadly  feud  for  the  sake  of  the 
Regent  Morton. 

James,  indeed,  as  regards  the  Douglases,  was  situated  much 
as  James  V.  had  been  when  Henry  VHI.  harboured  an  earlier 
Angus  and  Sir  George  Douglas,  The  Douglases  had  done  their 
best  to  slay  him  when  a  babe  unborn ;  Douglases  had  taken 
part  in  his  father's  murder ;  Morton  had  been  his  mother's  bitter 
foe,  and  had  dominated  himself,  and  to  this  brood  of  rebels  the 
arms  of  England  were  always  open.  The  present  Angus  was  a 
Puritan  devotee,  and  allied  with  James's  enemies,  the  preachers. 
"  A  harde  matter  to  doe  any  thinge  for  them," — the  Douglases, — 
Hunsdon  confesses.  After  nearly  five  hours  of  talk,  Arran  pre- 
sented to  Hunsdon  the  Master  of  Gray,  for  whom  James  asked 
a  safe-conduct  to  Elizabeth.  But  three  weeks  earlier  James  had 
promised  his  mother  to  send  one  of  his  gentlemen  to  demand  her 
release, ^^  and  now  he  was  despatching  the  young  and  beautiful 
Gray  for  her  undoing.  Arran  then  professed  that  James  (or  he 
himself,  the  sentence  is  obscure)  "  never  saw  Jesuit  in  his  life, 
and  did  assure  me  that  if  there  were  any  in  Scotland,  they  should 
not  do  so  much  harm  in  Scotland  as  their  ministers  will  do  in 
England,  if  they  preach  such  doctrine  as  they  did  in  Scotland." 
Elizabeth,  who  had  her  own  Puritans,  "  a  sect  of  perilous  conse- 
quence "  to  deal  with,  presently  silenced  the  exiled  Scottish 
preachers. 

On  the  same  day  (August  14)  Hunsdon  also  wrote  to  Burleigh 
insisting  on  Arran's  good  faith,  and  practical  kingship  of  Scotland,  a 
point  not  to  be  forgotten  in  judging  the  unhappy  James.  "  They 
do  not  stick  to  say  that  the  king  beareth  the  name,  but  he  [Arran] 
beareth  the  sway."  "  He  seems  to  be  very  well  learned.  .  .  .  Latin 
is  rife  with  him  and  sometimes  Greek."     "  Avec  du  Grec  on  ne 


3IO  THE    MASTER   WILL   BETRAY   MARY. 

peut  gater  rien ! "  Hunsdon  complained  that  the  pious  exiles 
vapoured  about  Berwick  with  pistols,  and  were  continually  crossing 
into  Scotland.  They  ought  to  be  removed  inland,  a  thing  which 
Elizabeth  did  not  grant  till  about  Christmas.  Hunsdon  was  explicit 
about  Gray,  he  was  to  "  discover  the  practices  "  against  Elizabeth. 
"  He  is  very  young,  but  wise  and  secret.  .  .  .  He  is  no  doubt  very 
inward  with  the  Scottish  queen  and  all  her  affairs,  both  in  England 
and  France,  yea,  and  with  the  Pope."  ^^  Perhaps  because  Hunsdon's 
wishes  and  ambitions  prompted  him,  he  was  fairly  won  over  by 
Arran,  while  Cecil's  nephew.  Sir  Edward  Hoby,  wrote  letters  in  the 
same  sense.  There  was  in  Arran  an  air  of  splendid  mastery.  Hoby 
regarded  him  as  practically  king  de  facto.  While  all  the  rest  of  the 
company  wore  secret  armour,  Hoby  believed  that  Arran  and  the 
IMaster  of  Gray  wore  none,  though  Arran  did  not  conceal  his 
knowledge  that  many  of  his  retinue  would  gladly  cut  his  throat. -** 
He  placed  his  king  and  himself  at  the  feet  of  Cecil,  Mary's  most 
persistent  enemy. 

On  Arran's  return  to  Edinburgh  he  was  welcomed  by  the  guns  of 
the  castle,  a  novel  honour,  and  Parliament,  which  presently  met,  ran 
its  course.  In  Edinburgh  Davison,  chagrined  by  Arran's  success, 
describes  to  Walsingham  the  forfeitures  which  fed  the  avarice  of  the 
favourite's  wife.  The  brutal  treatment  of  Lady  Gowrie  by  Arran  is 
especially  insisted  upon.  He  pushed  her  down  in  the  street  when 
she  wished  to  present  a  petition  (August  24).  Her  genealogy  has 
been  doubted,  but  she  was  a  Stewart  of  the  line  of  Methven,  third 
husband  of  Margaret  Tudor,  and  a  woman  of  high  ambitions.  This 
August  Parliament  was  busy  w'ith  confirming  the  forfeitures  of  the 
exiles,  and  of  the  heirs  of  Gowrie.  An  Act  was  passed  by  which 
all  "  beneficed  persons,"  preachers  and  teachers,  were  compelled 
to  sign  approval  of  the  ordinances  of  the  Parliament  in  May,  with 
promise  of  submission  to  bishops.  The  penalty  for  refusal  was  loss 
of  benefice.^^  Many  preachers  presently  did  subscribe,  with  a  quali- 
fying clause. 

Meanwhile  from  Berwick  Hunsdon  reported  to  Cecil  the  useful- 
ness of  the  Master  of  Gray,  who  knows,  and  will  reveal,  all  the  plans 
of  Mary.  "  The  king  here,  nor  the  Earl  of  Arran,  know  nothing  of 
those  practices  but  by  him,  and  so  the  Earl  swore  to  me  "  (August 

29).22 

From  Edinburgh  James  went  to  Falkland,  Hither,  if  we  are  to 
believe  a  Border  rufifian,  Jock  Grahame  of  Peartree,  that  rogue  was 


MARY   AND   THE    MASTER.  3II 

brought,  and  was  bribed  by  James  himself  to  shoot  Angus.  But 
Jock,  though  he  cherished  a  feud  with  Angus,  had  none  with  Mar. 
His  conscience  was  easy  as  to  slaying  Angus  ;  Mar  he  would  not 
meddle  with.  The  bribe  was  never  paid,  and  there  was  no  shooting, 
while  the  whole  anecdote  rests  only  on  Jock's  deposition,  taken  by 
Lord  Scrope  (November  25).  The  deposition  was  recorded  by 
Calderwood,  and,  given  Jock's  character,  is  hardly  good  evidence.-^ 
That  he  made  the  statement,  however,  is  certain. 

Meanwhile  the  embassy  of  the  Master  of  Gray  was  delayed,  and 
Elizabeth  was  doubtful  of  him,  while  as  to  Arran's  mendacity  re- 
garding James  and  the  Jesuits  she  was  in  no  doubt.  The  capture 
of  Father  Creighton  at  sea,  and  the  discovery  of  his  papers  about 
the  old  Guise  plot,  increased  her  suspicions.  She  thought  of 
allowing  the  exiled  lords  to  reside  at  Holy  Island,  within  a  short 
hour's  ride  of  the  Border,  and  on  October  6  she  informed  them  that 
she  was  mediating  for  them  with  James.  But  by  October  19  Gray 
received  his  credentials.  Davison  had  informed  Walsingham  that 
James  "  disliked  the  change  " — that  is,  the  betrayal  of  his  mother. 
His  scruples  may  have  delayed  the  mission  of  the  traitor,  which,  as 
regards  Mary,  Arran  may  have  arranged  unknown  to  the  king.-* 

But  Mary,  in  a  letter  to  Gray  of  October  i,  denounced  Gray's 
pretence,  made  to  her,  that  he  was  to  announce  to  Elizabeth  a 
merely  apparent  discord  between  herself  and  her  son.  She  said 
that  Elizabeth's  sole  policy  was  to  feed  James  and  herself  with  false 
hopes,  so  as  to  withdraw  them  from  their  Catholic  allies.  And, 
indeed,  this  was  Elizabeth's  purpose.  Mary  had  often  taken  the 
bait.  If  she  and  Elizabeth  appeared  to  be  approaching  an  agree- 
ment, Mary  was  at  once  dropped  by  the  Catholic  princes,  and  then 
there  was  no  reason  why  Elizabeth  should  allow  the  treaty  to  go 
farther.  When  Mary,  consequently,  turned  to  France,  Spain,  or  the 
Pope,  then  the  measures  in  which  she  became  involved  were  neces- 
sarily acts  of  hostility  to  Elizabeth  ;  so  the  unhappy  captive  queen 
was  more  severely  treated,  and,  at  last,  was  executed.  There  was 
no  escape  from  the  weary  round,  of  which  the  end  was  approaching. 
As  late  as  September  7  Mary  had  been  expecting  much  from  a  visit 
of  Sadleir,  who  had  seen  her  naked  in  her  cradle.  She  was  now 
(after  August  25)  at  Wingfield  ;  Shrewsbury  no  longer  had  her  in 
charge,  after  certain  false  and  odious  tales  circulated  by  his  wife. 
Mary's  secretary,  Nau,  was  to  visit  the  English  Ministers,  and  Eliz- 
abeth was  professing  that  Mary  must  be  allowed  to  return  to  Scot- 


312  MARY   AND   THE   MASTER. 

land.  Mary  was  expressing  gratitude  to  Archibald  Douglas,  and 
hopes  of  seeing  the  Master  of  Gray.  But  by  October  i  she  knew 
that  Gray  was  playing  a  double  game,  and  she  had  warnings  from 
Fontaine  in  Scotland.  She  told  Gray  that  she  was  apprised  of  his 
betrayal,  by  rumour,  urged  him  to  be  loyal,  and  warned  him  against 
Archibald  Douglas,  of  whom  she  must  recently  have  learned  some- 
thing. Walsingham  having  bought  the  secretary  of  the  French 
Ambassador,  who  deciphered  this  letter  for  the  Master  of  Gray, 
knew  all  that  Mary  had  said  of  Archibald  and  of  Elizabeth.  Gray 
presently  wrote  to  Mary  a  letter  of  the  most  dastardly  insolence,  and 
it  was  clear,  though  Elizabeth  hesitated  till  near  Christmas-time, 
that  Mary  was  lost.^^  Elizabeth  continued  to  hesitate  and  Mary  to 
hope.  An  Italian  Jesuit,  Martelli,  warned  her  that  she  "  had  too 
many  irons  in  the  fire."  She  is  accused  of  having  written  to  a 
supporter  in  Spain,  saying  that  she  had  no  expectations  from  her 
treaty  with  Elizabeth,  and  that  the  Pope  and  Spain  should  speed 
on  an  invasion  of  England.^*^  Dangerous  work ;  but,  unless  the 
Catholic  Powers  were  active  on  her  side,  she  well  knew  that  Eliz- 
abeth would  only  play  with  her  like  a  cat  with  a  mouse. 

In  October-November  the  English  association  was  formed  for  the 
protection  of  Elizabeth,  and  the  slaying  of  any  person  by  whom,  or 
for  whom,  an  attack  was  made  on  her  life.  This  shaft  was  aimed 
at  Mary,  guilty  or  innocent.  Gray's  negotiations  dragged  on  ; 
Mauvissiere,  the  French  Ambassador,  said  that  James  was  abandon- 
ing his  mother.^'^  Nau  came  from  Wingfield  to  London  to  speed 
the  treaty  for  Mary's  liberation.  Mary  was  ready  to  consent  to  any 
conditions.  She  bade  the  Guises  abandon  the  expedition  which 
they  never  meant  to  make.  But  the  Pope,  of  course,  by  the  old 
seesaw,  now  reproached  Mary  for  a  treaty  with  a,  heretic.  The 
natural  results  followed.  No  longer  in  fear  of  the  Catholic  Powers, 
Elizabeth  extracted  from  Gray  such  secrets  as  he  had  to  sell;  in 
return  she  removed  the  exiled  Scottish  lords  to  the  south,  and  sent 
Mary  to  the  dismal  and  pestilent  prison  of  Tutbury.  Here  she  was 
so  guarded  that  she  could  not  conspire  :  Paulet,  her  gaoler,  saw  to 
that.  Gray  seems  to  have  carried  his  point  and  sold  his  queen 
about  December  22,^^^  and  Fontaine,  as  an  enemy  of  the  successful 
Master,  was  banished  from  Scotland.  By  January  24  the  Master 
was  back  at  Holyrood,  and  could  report  that  James's  association 
with  his  mother  was  cancelled.  A  scoundrel  always  has  an  excuse ; 
Gray's  was  that  Mary  had   behaved   ill    to   himself,  in   listening  to 


ENGLISH    INTRIGUES   AGAINST   ARRAN    (1585).  313 

Fontaine  and  Nau."^^  While  in  England  Gray  had  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  a  plot  for  the  ruin  of  Arran,  of  whom  he  was  jealous,  and 
it  may  be  suggested  that  this  plot,  rather  than  any  revelations  as  to 
Mary  which  he  could  make,  was  the  basis  of  his  success.  Gray's 
beauty  and  charm  won  for  him,  while  in  England,  the  friendship  of 
Sir  Philip  Sidney,  which  Gray,  who  was  human,  though  a  Scottish 
politician  of  the  period,  returned  with   sincere  affection. 

Elizabeth  knew  that  Arran  was  not  to  be  trusted,  and  wished  him 
out  of  the  way.  In  April  1585,  after  the  Holy  League  of  Guise  to 
exclude  Henry  of  Navarre  from  the  French  throne  took  shape.  Sir 
Edward  Wotton  received  his  instructions  as  ambassador  to  James, 
with  vague  promises  of  a  pension,  and  actual  gifts  of  horses  and 
hounds.  Wotton's  business  was  to  secure,  against  the  Holy  League, 
a  league  between  England  and  Scotland ;  but,  as  usual,  the  chief 
affair  of  Elizabeth's  ambassador  was  to  dabble  in  plots  against  James 
and  his  chief  advisers.  He  found  Gray,  Morton  (Maxwell),  and 
others  bent  on  violence  against  Arran,  but  he  gave  to  Gray  a  letter 
from  Elizabeth  in  which  she  discountenanced  such  measures.  It 
would  be  wiser  merely  to  drive  Arran  from  Court.  James  approved 
of  a  league  with  Elizabeth,  and  the  terms  were  reduced  to  writing. 
Meanwhile  Mary,  in  the  wretched  captivity  of  Tutbury,  had  been 
inclined  to  threaten  James  with  her  maternal  curse.  She  hoped  to 
see  and  work  on  his  Justice-Clerk,  Bellenden,  who  was  on  a  mission 
to  London.  Mary  attributed  James's  filial  impiety  to  the  influence 
of  Gray,  but  it  was  on  James  that  she  would  invoke  the  Erinnys  of 
a  mother's  malison.  Her  rights  she  would  bequeath  to  her  son's 
worst  enemy,  and  she  repeated  her  suspicions  of  Archibald  Douglas.'^'' 
While  Mary's  despair  deepened,  and  was  apt  to  drive  her  into  perilous 
courses,  at  Edinburgh  the  English  Ambassador  was  dealing  with  his 
allies,  the  conspirators  against  Arran. 

Bellenden  proposed  a  useful  assassin,  and  that  person,  a  Douglas 
naturally,  had  an  interview  with  Elizabeth's  envoy.  On  the  whole, 
Wotton  discouraged  the  Scottish  love  of  dirk  or  gun  ;  but  his  affair 
of  the  league  between  James  and  Elizabeth  was  prospering,  when  on 
July  29  he  had  to  announce  the  slaying  of  Sir  Francis  Russell  and 
the  capture  of  Sir  John  Forster  in  a  Border  brawl.  The  slaughter 
was,  possibly,  in  revenge  for  a  recent  English  foray,  but  it  was  per- 
petrated on  a  day  of  truce.  Mendoza  heard  that  the  affair  rose 
out  of  an  Englishman's  refusing  to  pay  for  a  pair  of  spurs  bought 
from  a  pedlar.     A  Scot  remonstrated,  the  Englishman  struck  him, 


314  THE    EXILES    LET   SLIP. 

a  brawl  began,  and  Russell,  coming  out  to  quiet  it,  was  slain.  So 
Mendoza  wrote  from  Paris.^^  The  king  wept  at  the  ill  news,  and 
the  chance  was  seized  to  throw  suspicion  on  Arran  as  instigator  of 
the  deed.  Arran  was  therefore  warded  in  St  Andrews  Castle,  but 
later  consigned  to  his  own  house.  Wotton  advised  Elizabeth  to 
take  great  offence  at  Russell's  death  (which  seems  to  have  been 
caused  in  chance  mellay),  and  to  make  it  a  handle  against  Arran. ^^ 
The  occurrence  of  a  plague  in  the  chief  towns  raised  "  the  common 
clamour  of  the  people  against  the  earl  and  his  lady,"  says  Calder- 
wood,  while  the  wet  weather  v/as  also  laid  to  his  guilt,  atmospheric 
effects  having  political  causes.  Arran,  however,  bribed  the  Master 
of  Gray  to  procure  his  release  from  St  Andrews  Castle ;  or  perhaps 
Arran  extorted  this  favour  by  using  his  knowledge  of  the  Master's 
conspiracy  against  his  own  life.  This  appears  more  probable 
(though  Wotton  speaks  of  bribery),  as  the  Master  (August  14)  wrote 
to  consult  Archibald  Douglas  on  his  new  dilemma.  Elizabeth  he 
had  offended  by  releasing  Arran  :  Arran  had  him  in  the  hollow  of 
his  hand ;  so  Gray  saw  his  only  hope  in  the  return  of  the  very 
exiles  whose  removal  from  the  Borders  he  had  himself  accom- 
plished. Gray  had  cut  himself  off  from  Mary,  from  the  Catholic 
Powers,  from  England,  though  he  was  "very  penitent,"  and  from 
Arran.     The  exiles  were  his  only  resource.^^ 

On  August  25  Wotton,  being  on  a  hunting  expedition  with 
James,  wrote  to  Walsingham.^'*  Gray  had  just  told  him  that  it 
was  vain  to  hope  to  alter  James's  affection  for  Arran  (though  he 
was  at  the  moment  removed  from  Court),  and  that  while  James 
was  in  this  mind  the  exiles  could  not  be  restored  by  fair  means. 
The  league  with  England  would  be  frustrated.  Gray  would  be  in 
peril,  and  Arran  might  carry  the  king  into  France.  Elizabeth, 
therefore,  should  make  a  grievance  of  Russell's  death,  decline  to 
negotiate  for  the  league,  and  "  let  slip "  the  exiles,  provided  with 
money ;  Gray  would  communicate  with  them  through  "  a  special 
friend  of  his  "  in  England  (Archibald  Douglas  probably).  Wotton 
added  that  Morton  (Maxwell),  then  at  feud  with  Arran,  was  thought 
to  be  in  alliance  with  that  earl,  who  supplied  him  with  gold  sent  from 
France ;  possibly  Morton  would  seize  James  and  take  him  to  that 
country.  Wotton  ends,  "  If  this  plot  "  (Gray's)  "  take  place  I  hope 
I  am  not  such  an  abject  but  1  shall  be  revoked  before."  He  made 
no  other  demur,  though  James  was  negotiating  a  league  with  Eng- 
land,   and    though    the    conspirators    intended    to    seize    the    king 


ALL   THE   EXILES   RETURN   (1585).  315 

(September  i,  Wotton  to  Walsingham).  The  adventurers  included 
Morton  (who  was  in  disgrace  because  of  a  Maxwell  and  Johnstone 
feud),  Mar,  Angus,  and  the  Hamiltons.  But  Arran  had  reverted  to 
the  French  faction,  he  encouraged  Holt  and  Dury,  the  Jesuits,  and 
received  money  through  Robert  Bruce  (not  the  celebrated  preacher 
of  that  name),  who  was  apt  to  play  the  part  of  a  double  spy. 

Early  in  September  the  news  of  the  enterprise  of  the  exiles  was 
rumoured  abroad,  reaching  Arran  and  James,  who  wrote  to  Hunsdon. 
Arran  being  on  the  alert,  and  still,  though  not  at  Court,  in  secret 
favour  with  James,  Wotton  knew  that  his  own  life,  after  all  his 
treacheries,  was  hardly  worth  a  week's  purchase.  In  his  letters 
he  proves  himself  far  from  courageous,  and  incessantly  asks  to 
be  recalled,  as  the  Scots  "  have  no  sense  of  honour." 

These  people  have  honour  eternally  in  their  mouths,  even  when 
an  ambassador  is  doing  his  best  to  let  loose  on  a  king  his  worst 
enemies,  and  the  exiled  ministers,  for  these  devoted  men  were  pray- 
ing, and  preaching,  and  conspiring  with  the  best.  By  September  18 
Gray  announces  a  probable  pardon  for  Archibald  Douglas  :  "  the 
old  fox"  was  likely  to  be  a  valuable  tool.  By  September  22  Arran 
was  mustering  his  forces  to  support  the  king.  James  meant  to 
proceed  in  arms  against  Morton,  and  this  was  a  fair  pretext  for  a 
large  levy  of  men.  Elizabeth  made  an  excuse  out  of  the  affair  of 
the  death  of  Russell  for  recalling  Wotton,  who,  to  his  extreme 
relief,   was  safe  in   Berwick  on   October   15. 

Only  by  hard  spurring  did  he  escape  the  hands  of  James  ;  for  the 
king  had  learned  of  the  arrival  of  the  exiles  on  the  Border,  where 
they  were  met  by  an  army  of  friends.  The  Douglases  marched 
north  by  Peebles,  the  Hamiltons  joined  hands  wnth  the  Maxwells, 
under  Morton,  at  Dumfries,  and  they  all  trysted  to  meet  at  Falkirk, 
8000  men  strong,  on  the  last  day  of  October.  Meanwhile  Gray 
was  raising  men  in  Fifeshire,  nominally  to  march  with  James 
against  Morton,  really  to  surprise  Perth.  That  all  these  movements 
of  men  should  have  been  accomplished  so  secretly  as  to  find  James 
utterly  unprepared,  seems  surprising  to  modern  readers,  familiar 
with  the  rapid  conveyance  of  news.  But  we  may  reflect  that  England 
was  now  favourable  to  the  exiles  ;  that  mounted  couriers  could  easily 
be  stopped  on  the  way  as  they  rode  north  with  tidings  ;  that  the 
Border  was  populated  by  enemies  of  Arran  ;  that  the  godly  every- 
where were  partisans  of  Angus ;  that  the  Maxwells  controlled  the 
western  Marches ;  that  James,  impatient  of  business,  was  given  up 


3l6         RAID   OF   STIRLING.      FALL   OF   ARRAN   (1585). 

to  sport, — "  scarcely  for  hunting  do  we  either  eat  or  sleep,"  wrote 
the  Master  of  Gray ;  and,  above  all,  that  Arran  was  "  discourted," 
was  at  Kinneil,  and  could  not  defend  his  master. 

No  sooner  did  Arran  hear  of  Wotton's  flight  and  of  the  exiles 
crossing  the  Border  than  he  rushed  to  Court,  at  Stirling,  denounced 
Gray,  and  bade  James  command  that  traitor  to  his  presence.  Gray 
was  summoned,  and  with  equal  courage  and  astuteness  obeyed  the 
call,  and  by  his  grace  and  craft  persuaded  James  of  his  innocence. 
Arran  determined  to  slay  him  in  the  royal  presence ;  but  news  ar- 
rived that  the  exiles  were  within  a  mile  of  Stirling.  Arran  himself, 
with  ]\Iontrose,  kept  watch  on  the  town  walls  through  the  night  of 
November  i.  But  next  day  he  galloped  off  with  one  follower  over 
the  bridge  of  Forth,  while  the  courtiers  retired  into  Stirling  Castle. 
The  exiles  raised  their  banners  against  it,  James  sent  the  Master  of 
Gray  to  parley  with  them ;  they  offered  security  to  their  king,  but 
would  give  no  promises  as  to  Arran.  The  castle  was  not  victualled 
for  a  siege ;  James  surrendered ;  Montrose,  Crawford,  Rothes, 
Colonel  Stewart,  and  others  were  taken,  and  Arran  was  proclaimed 
a  traitor.  Henceforth  he  skulked  and  intrigued  till  Douglas  of 
Parkhead,  many  years  later,  avenged  Morton  by  spearing  his  de- 
nouncer at  Catslack ;  still  later,  Douglas  was  himself  slain  by  a 
Stewart  at  the  cross  of  Edinburgh.  The  strong  places  were 
handed  over  to  the  Hamiltons,  Humes,  Douglases,  and  Mar,  while 
the  Master  of  Glamis  received  the  command  of  the  Guard. ^^ 

It  was  a  bloodless  revolution.  The  king  and  the  bishops  were 
once  more  likely  to  be  laid  at  the  feet  of  the  preachers,  as  after  the 
Raid  of  Ruthven.  Yet  Catholics  or  crypto-Catholics,  like  Morton 
(Maxwell)  and  the  Hamiltons,  and  a  desperado  like  Bothwell,  with 
such  an  ideal  traitor  as  the  Master,  were  unseemly  instruments  in 
the  restoration  of  our  Zion.  With  his  engrained  dissimulation 
James  affected  to  rejoice  in  the  changes,  and  uttered  a  boastful 
Protestant  speech  in  a  Parliament  held  at  Linlithgow.  There  was 
to  be  a  league  with  England,  a  league  of  all  Christian  princes  against 
idolatry.  Yet  "  the  king  likes  hunting  better  than  church,"  wrote 
Knollys,  the  new  English  ambassador,  to  Walsingham.^^  In  Febru- 
ary 1586  the  veteran  Randolph  succeeded  to  the  English  embassy. 
He  did  not  find  that  the  golden  age  had  returned.  The  godly  had 
already  been  sorely  disappointed.  They  had  expected  that,  as 
usual,  the  General  Assembly  would  meet  before  Parliament  met, 
and  direct  the  course  of  that  erring  lay  meeting  by  prayers  and 


DISAPPOINTMENT   OF   THE   KIRK.  317 

petitions.  They  fixed  on  Dunfermline  as  the  seat  of  their  gathering, 
but  Hallcet  of  Pitfirrane,  the  Provost,  would  not  allow  them  to  enter 
the  town.  Some  years  afterwards  he  fell  by  accident,  or  was  cast  by 
spirits,  out  of  the  third-floor  window  of  the  old  House  of  Pitfirrane, 
— an  obvious  judgment  on  his  wickedness  in  maintaining  the  law, 
"the  Black  Acts"  of  1584,  so  Calderwood  reports.  The  Brethren 
met  in  Linlithgow,  where  James  Melville,  returned  from  exile,  found 
them  but  heavy-hearted.  Angus  was  the  only  one  of  the  lately 
banished  peers  who  gave  them  any  kind  of  support.  The  others, 
having  attained  their  carnal  desires,  were  indifferent  to  the  welfare 
of  the  Kirk.  A  pestilence  that  had  been  raging  ceased  miracul- 
ously when  the  godly  entered  Stirling.  Heaven,  at  least,  was 
favourable. 

On  December  i  a  Parliament  was  held  at  Edinburgh,  practically 
to  undo  the  work  of  the  Parliaments  of  May  and  August  1584. 
The  forfeitures  were  revoked,  the  Cowries  were  restored  to  their 
lands  and  dignities,  the  expelled  ministers  were  reinstated  in  their 
benefices.^" 

There  remained  strife  between  the  preachers  who  had  subscribed, 
like  the  venerable  Craig,  the  Black  Acts  of  1584,  and  those  who 
had  refused.  Craig  even  preached  against  these  recusants.  Andrew 
Melville,  however,  took  the  opportunity  of  being  "  plain  with  the 
king."  Some  papers  of  controversy  passed,  James  loving  polemics 
next  to  hunting.  He  trusted,  he  said,  that  "  the  whole  ministers  of 
Scotland  shall  amend  their  manners  "  as  to  railing  sermons.  He 
quoted  some  Latin,  and  a  little  Greek  (December  7,  1585).^^  The 
preachers,  as  James  Melville  said,  "  threatened,  denounced,  and 
cursed "  the  lords  with  evangelical  ferocity.  The  lords  took  it 
sedately ;  but  James  scolded  the  Rev.  Mr  Balcanqual  from  his 
gallery  in  St  Giles's.  It  appears  to  have  been  the  theory  of  the 
preachers  that  whatever  they  said  from  the  pulpit  was  inspired  by 
"the  Spirit  of  God."  Thus  (December  21)  James  wrangled  with 
Mr  Gibson,  minister  of  Pencaitland — 

King.   "  What  moved  you  to  take  that  text  ?  " 

Minister.   "  The  Spirit  of  God,  sir." 

King.   "The  Spirit  of  God  !  "  [repeating  thrice  over  tauntingly). 

Minister.  "Yes,  sir,  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  teacheth  all  men, 
chiefly  at  extraordinary  times,  putteth  that  text  in  their  heart  that 
serveth  best  for  the  time."  ^^ 

We  shall  meet  another  example  of  this  claim,  which  placed  the 


3l8  FALL  OF  ADAMSON    (1586). 

preachers  on  the  footing  of  inspired  prophets  whose  poUtical 
harangues  must  be  allowed  entire  licence.  They  claimed  "  the 
liberty  of  the  Word,"  which  meant  a  freedom  of  speech  and  of  in- 
terference not  endurable  in  a  State  ruled  by  the  laity.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  Morton  (Maxwell)  now  "  set  up  the  mass,"  for  which  he 
was  imprisoned,  and  Claude  Hamilton  reverted  to  the  French  and 
Marian  faction,  corresponding  with  Philip  of  Spain. 

On  February  17,  1586,  a  modus  vivendi  between  the  king  and  the 
preachers  was  arranged.  The  king  was  to  present  bishops  to  the 
General  Assembly,  from  which  the  bishop  "  received  his  admission," 
The  prelate  was  to  "serve  the  cure  of  a  special  kirk,  the  "flock" 
having  leave  to  oppose.  A  presbytery  from  within  his  bounds,  or 
diocese,  was  to  oversee  his  proceedings :  he  was  to  be  rather  a 
"  moderator "  than  a  bishop  in  the  usual  sense.  For  his  private 
conduct  he  was  to  be  responsible  to  the  Assembly.  There  were 
other  restrictions,  and  the  Kirk  retained  the  arm  of  excommunica- 
tion, or  "  boycotting,"  that  fatal  "  rag  of  Rome."  Montgomery,  the 
excommunicated  bishop,  was  to  "  purge  his  offence  "  and  be  recon- 
ciled to  the  Kirk.  A  Mr  Watson  was  to  apologise  in  the  pulpit  for 
a  trenchant  historical  parallel  drawn  by  him  between  James  and 
Jeroboam,  in  which  James  was  represented  as  rather  the  worse  of 
the  pair, — "an  odious  comparison."  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  on 
this  occasion  Mr  Watson  was  not  inspired.  But  in  Fife  James 
Melville  and  his  adherents  attacked  their  old  enemy,  Archbishop 
Adamson,  as  a  person  "envenomed  by  the  dragon."  On  April  13 
the  Provincial  Assembly  of  Fife  excommunicated  the  Archbishop, 
but  sent  several  preachers  and  a  laird  to  reason  with  him.  After 
some  dispute  the  Assembly  excommunicated  the  Archbishop,  and 
he  in  turn  excommunicated  Andrew  and  James  Melville.  Their 
friends  were  said  to  be  anxious  to  hang  him  :  he  is  accused  of  acute 
poltroonery,  and  as  a  hare  ran  from  South  Street  to  the  castle  before 
him,  "the  people  called  it  the  bishop's  witch." ^"^ 

The  Kirk,  and  the  charge  of  witchcraft,  proved  in  the  end  too 
heavy  for  the  Archbishop.  Dr  M'Crie,  the  sympathetic  biographer 
of  Andrew  Melville,  regards  the  procedure  of  the  Fife  synod  as 
"precipitant  and  irregular."  The  General  Assembly,  not  the  synod 
under  Adamson's  enemies,  was  the  proper  place  for  his  arraignment. 
Though  Calderwood  denies  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  against 
Adamson,  Dr  M'Crie  quotes  a  contemporary  diary  (April  10)  to 
the  effect  that  he  "  was  stricken   by  the   Master  of  Lindsay,  and 


WALSINGHAM    ENTRAPS    MARY   (1586).  319 

Thomas  Scott  of  Abbotshall."  In  May  Adamson  made  a  form  of 
submission  to  the  General  Assembly,  disclaiming  superiority  over 
his  synod  and  right  to  judge  ministers  :  so  he  was  reinstated.  The 
modus  vivendi  of  February  was  brought  before  the  Assembly  in  May, 
and  was  somewhat  watered  down,  presbyteries  being  re-established. 
James  could  not  yet  erect  bishops  who  were  bishops  indeed,  but 
"  the  horns  of  the  mitre  "  and  the  hated  name  of  bishop  were  not 
removed  from  the  fold.  Andrew  Melville  (May  26)  was  sent  north 
of  Tay,  to  convert  any  Jesuits  he  might  find  in  these  benighted  parts, 
and  to  give  the  town  and  University  of  St  Andrews  a  little  peace. 
But  James  had  a  master  of  the  hawks  who,  again,  had  a  friend 
who  was  a  tenant  of  Andrew  Melville's  "  New  College  "  (St  Mary's 
Hall),  and  James,  for  the  consideration  of  a  low  rent  to  the  friend 
of  his  falconer,  restored  Andrew  Melville  to  his  place. '*^  James  did 
nothing  without  an  element  of  the  grotesque. 

During  this  unsettlement  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  Randolph  was 
busy  at  Holyrood  (February  26,  1586).  His  chief  aim  was  to 
settle  the  league  with  England,  and  to  procure  the  pardon  and 
return  of  Archibald  Douglas.  As  a  traitor  to  Mary,  Archibald  was 
her  foe,  and  his  influence  with  James  would  be  pernicious  to  the 
Scottish  queen.  That  unhappy  lady  had  been  removed  in  January 
from  Tutbury  to  Chartley.  At  Tutbury  Amyas  Paulet  had  excluded 
her  from  all  news  of  the  world,  and,  so  far,  her  life  was  safe,  for 
she  could  not  conspire.  At  Chartley,  however,  Walsingham  set  his 
trap  for  her ;  arranged,  with  a  Catholic  spy  named  Gifford,  a  means 
of  communication  between  her  and  her  friends  ;  opened,  deciphered, 
•copied,  and  then  forwarded  her  letters  to  her  abettors.  Meanwhile 
Mary  supposed  that  her  faithful  agent,  Morgan,  in  the  Bastille,  had 
found  the  way  by  which  she  was  communicating  with  Mendoza  in 
Paris. *^  She  informed  him  (May  20)  that  if  James  remained  heret- 
ical, she  had  made  Philip  her  heir.  Walsingham  thus  acted  as 
an  agent  provocateur,  with  the  natural  results.  Mary  might  have 
been — she  long  had  been — kept  harmless  perforce.  Now  she  was 
committing  herself,  not  only  to  the  Catholic  plan  of  invasion,  but 
probably  to  Babington's  murder  plot,  all  of  which  was  known  to 
Elizabeth  and  Walsingham. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  explore  the  intricacies  of  Walsingham's 
■conspiracy.  The  advocates  of  Mary  argue  that  she  was  not  con- 
cerned in,  or  at  least  was  not  convicted  of  a  part  in,  the  assassination 
plot.     The  evidence,  for  lack  of  certain  original  papers,   may  not 


320  JAMES    RECEIVES    ARCHIBALD   DOUGLAS. 

have  been  technically  complete.  Mr  Tytler,  an  impartial  author, 
argues  that  forged  additions  were  made  to  Mary's  letters,  and  it 
may  have  been  so,  though  the  argument  is  not  convincing. 
Mendoza  wrote  to  Philip,  "  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  Queen  of 
Scotland  must  be  well  acquainted  with  the  whole  affair,  to  judge 
from  the  contents  of  a  letter  which  she  has  written  to  me,  which 
letter  I  do  not  enclose  herewith,  as  it  is  not  ciphered,  but  will  send 
it  with  my  next"  (September  lo).  No  such  letter  appears  in  the 
Spanish  correspondence.  Mary  herself  denied  that  she  was  con- 
cerned in  the  murder  plot,  in  a  letter  to  Mendoza  (November  23).^^ 
But  if  she  schemed  Elizabeth's  death  as  a  means  of  her  own  liber- 
ation, Mary  acted  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  an  age  when 
kings,  priests,  and  preachers  delighted  in  the  dagger.  Elizabeth 
had  been  conscious  of  the  plot  against  Riccio,  and  against  Mary's 
own  existence.  Later,  Elizabeth  urged  Amyas  Paulet  to  play 
against  Mary  the  part  now  assigned  to  Ballard  and  Savage  against 
herself.  Mary  had  pensioned  the  assassin  of  her  brother,  Murray, 
and  now  she  was  maddened  by  many  years  of  cruel  imprisonment 
and  by  unnumbered  wrongs.  Common  prudence  ought  to  have 
kept  her  aloof  from  Babington,  but  it  would  have  been  a  moral 
miracle  had  any  ethical  considerations  given  her  pause. 

Meanwhile  Randolph  (April  i)  secured  James's  signature  to  the 
league  with  England,  and  sent  at  the  same  time  orally  by  bearer 
news  of  a  Scottish  conspiracy  against  Elizabeth.^ 

The  Scottish  conspiracy  was  connected  with  Lord  Claude  Ham- 
ilton, Morton  (Maxwell),  and  Huntly,  who  offered  to  Guise,  through 
Robert  Bruce,  to  restore  Catholicism,  and  hand  over  Scottish  sea- 
ports to  Spain.'*^  On  May  20  Mary  wrote  of  Lord  Claude  as 
worthy  to  be  Regent  of  Scotland,  and  to  be  declared  heir  to  the 
crown  if  James  had  no  issue,  while  James  was  to  be  seized 
and  handed  over  to  Spain. '*^  The  letter  containing  this  plan, 
with  Mary's  intention  to  disinherit  James  in  favour  of  Philip  IL, 
was  of  course  detected  and  deciphered  for  Walsingham.  When 
James  learned  the  facts,  his  inclination  to  the  league  with  England, 
and  to  the  abandonment  of  his  mother,  was  naturally  increased. 
But  he  had  already  received  and  conversed  with  his  father's 
murderer,  Archibald  Douglas.  On  May  6,  from  Randolph's 
lodgings  in  Edinburgh,  Archibald  Douglas  wrote  a  very  long 
letter  to  Walsingham.*'^  He  had  met  James  in  Gray's  rooms 
on  May  3.     He  presented  a  letter  from  Elizabeth  in  his  favour. 


LEAGUE   WITH   ENGLAND.  32 1 

James,  after  reading  it,  professed  himself  Archibald's  friend,  the 
friend  of  his  father's  rrturderer  and  his  mother's  betrayer,  and  envoy 
of  the  queen  who  was  weaving;  her  nets  round  Mary !  The  king 
acquitted  Archibald,  as  to  Darnley's  murder,  of  all  but  that  fore- 
knowledge which  every  politician  of  the  time  had  possessed,  "  so 
perilous  to  be  revealed,  in  respect  of  all  the  actors  in  that  tragedy, 
that  no  man  without  extreme  danger  could  utter  any  speech  thereof, 
because  they  did  see  it,  and  could  not  amend  it."  This  was  glaring 
hypocrisy.  The  confessions  of  Hepburn  of  Bowton,  Morton,  and 
Binning  left  no  doubt  as  to  the  actual  guilt  of  James's  new  friend. 
Meanwhile  the  Secretary  and  Archibald  might  arrange  his  trial 
(which  they  did  by  help  of  a  packed  jury,  containing  Archibald's 
friend,  the  famous  Logan  of  Restalrig,  and  two  other  Logans  ;  by 
suppression  of  evidence,  and  by  the  royal  countenance).  James 
then  sought  to  find  out  how  he  stood  with  Elizabeth,  and  went  so 
far  as  to  hint  at  sending  a  Scottish  contingent  to  aid  her  in  the 
Low  Countries.  There  Sir  Philip  Sidney  was  engaged,  and  the 
Master  of  Gray,  for  love  of  Sidney,  had  nearly  ruined  himself  in 
levying  a  band  of  soldiers  of  fortune,  whom  he  intended  to  lead 
to  Flanders. 

James  was  soon  summoned  back  to  his  lords,  and  Archibald 
Douglas  had  a  conversation  with  Maitland,  the  Secretary.  He 
gathered  that  the  league  with  England  was  unpopular  with  the 
nobles,  as  was  the  idea  of  an  expedition  under  Gray  to  the  Low 
Countries,  involving  as  it  did  peril  from  Spain.  The  Court  was 
full  of  jealous  confederacies.  Randolph,  however,  carried  his  point 
as  to  the  league.  After  considerable  delay  it  was  confirmed  at  Ber- 
wick (July  5).  The  contracting  parties  were  to  maintain  the  Re- 
formed religion,  which  was  bearing  such  remarkable  fruits  of  virtue : 
neither  was  to  aid  a  foreign  Power  in  any  attack  upon  the  other : 
each  was  to  assist  the  other  with  armed  forces,  in  case  either  was 
invaded.  Rebels  were  to  be  delivered  up  or  expelled.  James  re- 
ceived little  satisfaction  as  to  the  succession,  and  his  pension 
(^4000)  could  scarcely  be  extorted  from  the  harpy-like  clutches 
of  Elizabeth. 

As  far  as  promises  and  parchment  could  go,  Elizabeth  was  now 
secure  against  a  Catholic  invading  force  landed  in  Scotland,  and 
James  was  utterly  wrested  from  his  mother's  cause,  July  was  em- 
ployed in  allowing  Mary  to  involve  herself,  in  appearance  at  least, 
with  Babington  and  the  murder  plot ;  and  on  August  3  she  was 

VOL.    II.  X 


322  MARY   CONDEMNED   TO   DIE. 

taken  when  on  a  hunting  ride  and  carried  to  Tixall.  Her  papers 
and  her  secretaries,  Nau  and  Curie,  were  seized  :  Nau  and  Curie 
were  cajoled  into  confessions.  As  early  as  July  22  Elizabeth  had 
found  the  Master  of  Gray's  stay  in  Scotland  "necessary  for  her 
service,"  in  consequence  of  reports  now  rife  as  to  the  enterprise  by 
Lord  Claude  Hamilton,  Morton,  and  Huntly.  Gray  and  Archibald 
were  to  act  as  detectives  for  the  English  queen.  It  may  be  hoped 
that  Gray,  who  had  intended  to  join  Sidney  in  the  Low  Countries 
and  had  spent  freely  in  raising  men,  desired  to  escape  from  the 
necessity  of  more  and  meaner  treasons  towards  Mary.  By  September 
8  Gray  reported  to  Archibald  Douglas,  now  James's  ambassador  to 
England,  the  delight  of  the  king  at  the  discovery  of  his  mother's 
conspiracy.  "  But  his  opinion  is  that  it  cannot  stand  with  his 
honour  that  he  be  a  consenter  to  take  his  mother's  life,  but  he  is 
content  how  strictly  she  be  kept,  and  all  her  old  knavish  servants 
hanged."  Gray  added  that  the  needs  of  all  honest  men  "  require 
that  she  were  out  of  the  way."  *^  Walsingham  requested  Gray  not 
to  allow  James  to  interfere.  Mary's  "  trial "  at  Fotheringay  had  been 
arranged  for,  and  was  likely  to  be  short.  Presents  of  horses  were 
made  to  James  by  advice  of  Archibald  Douglas. 

Mary  was  heard  in  her  defence,  without  counsel  or  witnesses, 
at  Fotheringay:  at  Westminster  (October  25)  the  witnesses  were 
examined  without  the  presence  of  the  accused.  On  November 
22  the  sentence  of  death  was  communicated  to  the  Queen  of 
Scotland,  who  received  it  as  became  her.  But  Elizabeth  must 
still  play  cat  and  mouse.  She  had  various  selfish  reasons  for 
hesitation :  it  was  not  by  any  means  certain  that  Mary's  death 
would  make  her  own  life  more  secure ;  she  did  not  love  to  set 
a  precedent  for  laying  hands  on  an  anointed  queen  ;  possibly  she 
may  not  have  been  unvisited  by  compunction.  After  making  a 
sacred  promise,  symbolised  by  the  gift  of  a  ring  with  a  diamond 
cut  in  likeness  of  a  rock,  she  had  imprisoned  her  guest,  exposed 
her  shame,  devastated  her  country,  turned  the  natural  love  between 
parent  and  child  into  hatred,  and,  finally,  she  had  practically  been 
agent  provocateur  of  the  plot  for  which  her  guest  was  to  die.  Her 
natural  indecision  was  fostered  by  all  these  causes,  but  her  Parlia- 
ment and  her  Ministers  were  resolute. 

As  regards  Scottish  history,  the  only  question  of  interest  is,  How 
did  the  king,  and  how  did  the  country,  behave  in  the  shameful 
prospect  of  seeing  the  royal  head  touched  by  a  foreign  hangman  ? 


TAMES   DESIRES   HER   STRICT   CONFINEMENT.  323 

The  news  of  the  conspiracy  in  which  Mary  was  implicated  had 
reached  James's  advisers  early,  before  the  conspirators  themselves 
knew  that  they  had  been  discovered.  Mary  was  writing  her  fatal 
letters  to  Babington  (fatal  whether  they  are  wholly  genuine  or  not) 
on  July  25  and  27.  On  August  i  (probably  Old  Style)  the  Master 
of  Gray  wrote  to  Archibald  Douglas,  who  had  set  out  to  London  as 
James's  ambassador.  The  laird  of  Fintry  (in  France  a  Catholic  ally 
of  Gray's)  had  been  with  him ;  "  it  seemed  to  me  his  errand  was  for 
to  know  what  conspiracy  this  was  that  of  late  had  been  discovered 
in  England.  I  pretended  I  knew  nothing  of  it  as  yet.  He  was  very 
inquisitive,  so  I  let  him  see  that  I  thought  his  mistress "  (Mary) 
"should  be  touched.  He  said  that  was  an  Allemanique  quarrel " 
{quereUe  d'AlIemagne)  "  to  be  quit  of  her,"  *^  By  September  8  James 
was  fully  informed,  and  was  congratulating  Elizabeth,  as  we  saw. 
His  idea  was  (and  probably  remained)  that  his  mother  should  be 
kept  in  such  close  confinement  that  further  action  on  her  part  would 
be  impossible.  This  had  already  been  the  case  at  Tutbury,  and  this 
course  James  recommended  to  Archibald  Douglas  (September  10). 
In  an  accompanying  letter  in  "  white  ink  "  the  Master  told  Douglas 
that  though  James  desired  his  mother  to  live,  "  I  pray  you  beware  in 
that  matter,  for  she  were  well  out  of  the  way."  He  suggested  that 
Douglas  should  get  money  for  him  from  Elizabeth,  as  he  was  much 
dipped  by  the  expenses  for  his  intended  Flemish  expedition. ^'^  On 
October  i  Gray  informs  Douglas  that  "  the  king  is  very  instant  for 
his  mother,"  and  intends  to  send  Gray  as  his  envoy  to  plead  for  her 
with  Elizabeth.  James  must  therefore  have  been  hoodwinked  by  the 
Master,  who  himself  then  wished  Mary  "out  of  the  way."  On 
October  4  de  Preau,  calling  himself  Courcelles,  and  representing 
France  at  Holyrood,  reports  James's  attitude.  Lord  John  Hamilton 
and  the  faithful  George  Douglas  of  the  Lochleven  adventure  had  been 
warning  him  of  his  dishonour  if  Elizabeth  "  put  her  hands  in  Mary's 
blood."  James,  in  reply,  spoke  of  his  mother's  injuries  to  himself. 
He  must  consider  his  own  interests,  and  he  did  not  believe  that 
Elizabeth  would  touch  his  mother  without  warning  him.  He  ad- 
hered to  his  plan   of  strict  confinement.^^ 

Bothwell  (Francis  Stewart,  nephew  of  Queen  Mary's  Bothwell) 
blundy  told  James  that  if  he  allowed  Elizabeth  to  slay  Mary  he 
deserved  himself  to  be  hanged  next  day.  James  "laughed,  and 
said  he  would  provide  for  that."  But  his  nobles  were  higher 
of  heart.     They  left   him   no   peace  (October  31)  till  he  decided 


324  HONESTY   OF   THE   MASTER. 

to  send  an  envoy,  William  Keith,  a  young  man,  and  a  pensioner 
of  Elizabeth.^2  Gray  foresaw  that  he  himself  would  later  be  sent, 
and  that  the  mission  would  be  his  "wrack" — as  it  was  (October 
25).  James  wished  him  at  this  inopportune  juncture  to  press  the 
question  of  his  own  succession,  all  that  he  really  cared  for,  and 
Gray  must  "  crab "  (he  says)  either  Elizabeth  or  his  master.  He 
never  v\-as  in  such  a  strait,  and  thought  of  escaping  to  Flanders, 
if  Douglas  could  make  Elizabeth  advise  James  to  that  effect.  If 
not,  if  he  is  obliged  to  go  to  England,  "/  must  be  a  Scottis 
tfian.  ...  I  protest  before  God  I  shall  discharge  myself  so  of 
my  duty,  if  I  be  employed,  that  whether  it  frame  well  or  evil, 
the  king  my  master  shall  not  justly  blame  me."  Thus  good  and 
bad  even  now  warred  in  the  heart  of  the  Master,  yet,  of  all  his 
perils,  he  most  dreaded — sea-sickness  on  the  voyage  to  the  Low 
Countries  !  "  I  will  not  for  ten  thousand  pounds  endure  the  sea 
this  season."  On  the  whole,  among  his  confusions,  it  was  plain  to 
Gray  that  if  Mary,  after  all,  was  to  escape,  it  was  best  for  him  that 
it  should  be  by  his  means. 

It  was  a  real  grief  to  Gray  that  at  this  hour  his  friend  Sir  Philip 
Sidney  was  killed  at  Zutphen.  We  find  the  noble  Fulke  Greville 
bewailing  his  loss  to  Archibald  Douglas.  "  Divide  me  not  from 
him  "  (Sir  Philip),  "  but  love  his  memory  and  me  in  it."  A  strange 
shrine  was  the  heart  of  the  Douglas  traitor  for  that  heroic  friend- 
ship !  On  November  6  the  jNIaster  also  laments  the  peerless  knight, 
whose  fall  made  his  scheme  of  retiring  to  join  Sidney  in  Flanders 
impossible.  "  He  and  I  had  that  friendship,  I  must  confess  the 
truth,  that  moved  me  to  desire  so  much  my  voyage  of  the  Low 
Countries."  The  Master's  love  for  Sidney  came  near  to  redeeming 
him,  and  perhaps  linking  his  renown  with  that  of  Astrophel.  The 
thought  of  Sidney  seems  to  have  inspired  the  Master,  and  he 
appeals  to  Archibald,  as  "a  good  fellow,"  to  work  in  the  interests  of 
the  men  of  the  sword  who  were  to  have  fought  with  him  in  Flan- 
ders, "that  they  be  well  used,  and  not  made  slaves  of,  as  they  are." 
"  Would  to  God  I  could  get  again  bygones  !  "  he  exclaims.  It  is 
the  tragedy  of  a  soul  not  yet  lost. 

Meanwhile  every  noble  of  heart  was  engaging  in  Scotland  for 
Mary's  behoof;  but  this,  again,  brought  the  Catholics  to  the  front, 
which  aroused  the  jealousy  of  the  preachers. ^^  Yet  all  Presby- 
terians were  not  so  bitter,  and  Angus,  the  Abdiel  among  the  nobles, 
desired  to  tell  James,  if  he  might  see  him,  "  that  the  nobles  will  not 


EMBASSY   OF   THE   MASTER   (1587).  325 

endure  that  the  Queen  of  England  shall  put  her  hands  in  his 
mother's  blood,  who  could  not  be  blamed  if  she  had  caused  the  Queeti 
of  England's  throat  to  be  cut,  for  detaining  her  so  unjustly  pris- 
oner."^* Angus  struck  the  right  note  for  Mary's  defence,  not  that 
she  was  innocent,  but  that  she  was  blameless.  Even  James  re- 
marked "that  his  mother's  case  was  the  strangest  that  ever  was 
heard  of,  the  like  not  to  be  found  in  any  story  of  the  world,"  and 
asked  Courcelles  "  if  he  had  ever  read  of  a  sovereign  prince  that 
had  been  detained  prisoner  so  long  time,  without  cause,  by  king  or 
prince  her  neighbour,  that  in  the  end  would  put  her  to  death." 
It  had  been  James's  wish  to  send  Bothwell  with  the  Master  of  Gray  : 
a  passport  for  Bothwell  was  refused  by  Elizabeth,  Courcelles  attrib- 
uted the  refusal  to  Archibald  Douglas  and  Gray  (December  31).^^ 
Courcelles  represented  James's  attitude  as  more  becoming  when  he 
wrote  to  Henri  III.  than  when  he  wrote  to  d'Esnaval.  From  his 
letters  to  d'Esnaval  we  gather  that  James  held  by  his  idea  of  solitary 
confinement. 

To  Walsingham  Gray  described  his  mission  as  "  modest,  not 
menacing."  James  had  sent  a  stern  letter  to  Elizabeth  by  Keith, 
but  for  this  Keith  and  Archibald  Douglas  apologised  to  Cecil :  "  it 
hath  proceeded  by  a  necessity  to  which  the  king  is  forced  by  the 
exclamation  of  his  subjects"  (December  6).  This  apology  was 
offered  by  Archibald  Douglas's  advice.^*^  He,  if  not  Keith,  had  been 
betraying  Mary's  interests.  They  were  clearly  Elizabeth's  pensioners, 
wrote  de  Vega  to  Philip  from  London. ^^  Gray  also  apologised  from 
Stamford  on  Christmas  Day,  as  he  rode  south  with  Robert  Mel- 
ville. For  the  rest,  as  to  Gray,  historians  denounce  him  for  the 
betrayer  of  Mary  to  the  scaffold,  and  as  the  wretch  who,  while  pre- 
tending to  plead  for  her,  secretly  urged  Elizabeth  to  seal  her  doom. 
But  the  friend  of  Sidney  did  not  sink  so  low.  Gray,  it  will  be 
made  certain,  discharged  his  duty  like  "a  Scottis  man."  Earlier, 
before  his  embassy,  he  had  wished  Mary  "  out  of  the  way."  But 
now  he  took  a  nobler  course,  a  course  more  worthy  of  his  As- 
trophel,  and  the  common  story  of  his  infamy  appears  to  rest  on  a 
confusion  between  his  attitude  in  August  15S6  and  his  conduct 
during  his  embassy. 

On  January  6-16,  1587,  Melville,  Gray,  and  Keith  had  an  audi- 
ence from  Elizabeth.  Like  Napoleon  on  such  occasions,  she 
bullied,  saying  that  if  she  had  such  a  servant  as  Robert  Melville  she 
would  cut  his  head  off.     Melville  replied  that  he  was  ever  ready  to 


326  ERROR   OF    MR   FROUDE, 

Stake  his  life  rather  than  advise  his  master  ill,  and  that  James  had 
not  one  faithful  servant  who  would  counsel  him  to  let  his  mother 
perish.  Three  or  four  days  later  (January  9-19)  the  envoys  again 
saw  Elizabeth  and  made  proposals.  They  did  not,  like  Charles  II. 
when  Prince  of  Wales,  offer  Elizabeth  carte  blanche  for  a  parent's 
life.  They  gave  the  surety  of  James  and  all  the  lords.  If  Eliz- 
abeth would  hand  Mary  over  to  them,  they  promised  to  make  her 
resign,  in  favour  of  James,  all  pretence  to  the  English  crown,  with 
the  guarantee  of  the  King  of  France.  Elizabeth  said  suddenly, 
"That  would  be  putting  two  weapons  in  the  hand  of  my  enemy  in 
place  of  one," — an  obvious  reflection.^^  She  withdrew  the  word 
"  enemy,"  and  asked  Melville  if  he  could  invent  any  security  for 
her  own  life,  if  Mary  were  spared?  Melville's  arguments  were 
good,  she  said,  and  she  promised  another  audience. 

Mr  Froude's  account  of  this  interview  is  curious  and  most  mis- 
leading. He  writes  :  "  Melville  spoke  at  length,  but  vaguely  ;  and, 
knowing  that  James  was  at  heart  only  anxious  for  his  own  interest, 
Elizabeth  suggested  maliciously  that,  if  she  pardoned  his  mother, 
he  should  renounce  his  own  pretensions  in  the  event  of  any  future 
conspiracy.  If  he  would  do  this,  the  Lords  and  Commons  might 
perhaps  be  satisfied  and  allow  her  to  live.  Neither  Scotland  nor 
James  were  \sic'\  prepared  to  sacrifice  what  they  had  set  their  hearts 
on  with  so  much  passion.  The  queen  told  the  ambassadors  that 
their  request  could  not  otherwise  be  granted.  They  made  a  formal 
protest,  and  withdrew."  ^^ 

This  did  not  happen.  Elizabeth  dismissed  the  envoys,  after 
finding  Melville's  reasoning  "  good."  The  next  audience  was  de- 
ferred for  five  or  six  days,  and  in  this  interval  a  gentleman  unnamed 
was  sent  to  Gray  with  the  proposal  which  Mr  Froude  tells  us  that 
Elizabeth  made  to  Melville,  Gray,  and  Keith.  Gray  rejecta  fort 
loing  ceste  ouverture,  asking  the  gentleman  if  he  was  commissioned 
to  make  the  hypothetical  proposal,  "  which  the  other  excused,  as 
merely  put  forth  by  way  of  talk."  ^° 

It  is  thus,  at  least,  that  Mr  Froude's  authority,  a  "  Memoire " 
from  Chateauneuf  the  French  Ambassador  to  Elizabeth,  describes 
the  circumstances.  Melville  did  not  speak  "  vaguely,"  Elizabeth 
did  not  "  maliciously "  make  this  absurd  suggestion  attributed  to 
her,  to  Melville,  Keith,  and  Gray.  Scotland  and  James  knew 
nothing  of  the  matter.  The  notion  was  mooted,  some  days  later,  to 
Gray   alone,   by   an    unnamed  gentleman,   who   professed   to  speak 


HONESTY  OF   THE   MASTER.  327 

without  authority,  merely  in  a  way  of  talk.  In  a  later  interview, 
according  to  the  French  account,  Elizabeth  announced  her  deter- 
mination to  put  her  hands  in  Mary's  blood.  The  Scots  delivered 
a  protest,  and  said  that  James  would  summon  the  Estates  and 
appeal  to  all  Christian  princes.  Elizabeth  declared  that  she  would 
send  an  envoy  to  James,  as  she  disbelieved  his  representatives. 
They  averred  that  James  would  receive  none  of  her  envoys  till  their 
own  return,  and  they  sent  to  their  king  to  demand  leave  to  quit 
England.  This  they  obtained  "in  five  or  six  days."  Elizabeth 
said  that  she  would  despatch  her  man,  and  they  begged  that  Mary 
might  live  till  his  return.  This  grace  Elizabeth  refused.  The 
Scots  reported  all  to  Chateauneuf,  and  went  home.  They  had 
been  accused  of  designs  against  Elizabeth,  because  one  of  their 
suite,  Ogilvie  of  Pourie  (later  a  double-dealer,  and  spy  of  Cecil), 
was  found  carrying  unloaded  pistols,  as  a  present  from  Gray  to 
an  English  friend. 

Such  is  the  French  account,  and  it  leaves  no  stain  on  the  envoys 
of  Scotland.  The  story  that  Gray  "  whispered  in  Elizabeth's  ear, 
The  dead  do?i't  bite"  is  found  in  Camden  and  Calderwood,  and 
everywhere,  but  where  is  the  authority  ?  When  had  Gray  an  oppor- 
tunity of  whispering  in  Elizabeth's  ear?  Another  version  is  that 
Gray  used  the  phrase  tnortui  no?i  mordent  in  a  letter  to  Elizabeth 
after  he  left  London.  Spottiswoode  says  that  when  Gray  was  tried 
in  May  1587  he  confessed  "that  when  he  perceived  her  inclining 
to  take  away  the  Queen  of  Scots'  life,  he  advised  her  rather  to  take 
her  away  in  some  private  way  than  to  do  it  by  form  of  justice,"  and, 
if  this  were  true,  Elizabeth  certainly  tried  to  follow  the  advice.  (It 
is  true  of  Gray  before  his  embassy,  but  during  his  embassy  he 
changed  his  note  and  was  a  true  Scot.)  But  Paulet  would  not  be 
her  bravo. *'^  Nobody  impeaches  Melville's  loyalty,  but  he  on 
January  26,  1586,  declared  to  James  that  Gray  "has  behaved  him- 
self very  uprightly  and  discreetly  in  this  charge,  and  [is]  evil  taken 
with  by  divers  in  these  parts  who  were  of  before  his  friends."  ^^ 
Melville  also  avers  that  "  letters  come  from  Scotland "  represent 
James  as  indifferent  to  his  mother's  fate.  We  do  not  know  what 
party  was  guilty  of  these  letters. 

Now  we  happen  to  be  able  to  corroborate  Melville's  statement  as 
to  Gray  in  an  unexpected  way.  The  Master  really  did  his  best  for 
Mary  during  his  embassy,  and  really  incurred  the  enmity  of  his  former 
friends  at  EHzabeth's  Court.     The  proof  comes  in  a  letter  of  March 


328  PROOF   FROM    LOGAN    OF   RESTALRIG. 

3,  1586,  from  Edinburgh  to  Walsingham.  The  writer  signs  himself 
"87611."  He  was,  in  fact,  Logan  of  Restalrig,  so  famous  after 
his  death  for  his  alleged  connection  with  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy. 
We  can  identify  him,  because,  writing  to  Walsingham,  he  asks  that 
letters  for  the  Master  of  Gray  from  England  may  be  sent  to  hi7n, 
(to  "87611");  and  Gray  himself,  writing  to  Archibald  Douglas, 
requests  him  to  send  letters,  not  direct  to  him,  but  to  Logan  of 
Restalrig.  Thus  Logan  of  Restalrig  and  "  876!!"  are  one  and  the 
same  person.  The  letters  are  not  in  his  own  but  in  an  Italian 
or  "  Roman "  handwriting.  By  this  means,  after  his  return  to 
Scotland,  the  Master  concealed  his  correspondence  with  England. ^^ 
Logan  is  therefore  Gray's  intermediary  with  Walsingham  and 
Archibald  Douglas.  He  also  offers,  being  Gray's  cousin  and  very 
intimate  with  him,  to  betray  all  his  designs  to  Walsingham,  like 
a  good  old  Scottish  gentleman.  (Logan's  mother  was  sister  of 
Gray's  father,   Patrick,   Lord  Gray.) 

The  point,  however,  is  that  Logan  corroborates  Robert  Melville's 
account  of  Gray's  behaviour  as  ambassador.  Standing  up  for  Mary, 
he  incurred  the  deadly  hatred  of  Leicester,  previously  his  friend. 
Gray  himself,  says  Logan,  is  "  greatly  altered  of  his  former  goodwill 
professed  to  England."  He  has  told  the  reason  of  the  change  to 
Logan.  In  autumn  1586,  before  his  embassy,  Gray  had  written  to 
Leicester,  "And  that  in  matters  of  State  and  great  importance 
which  are  not  necessary  to  be  rehearsed  at  this  present  .  .  .  the 
matter  itself  was  so  odious."  That  is  to  say,  before  his  embassy 
Gray  had  written  to  Leicester  advising  the  death  of  Mary  ;  even 
Restalrig  thought  this  "odious."  But,  Gray  warmly  taking  Mary's 
part  in  London,  Leicester  sent  his  earlier  and  odious  letters  to 
James  by  Sir  Alexander  Stewart.  Leicester  "  did  what  in  him  lay 
to  imperil  the  Master's  life,  standing,  honour,  and  reputation  for 
ever,"  says  Logan,  and  Elizabeth  orally  gave  Sir  Alexander  Stewart 
similar  directions.  Apparently  Stewart  thought  it  wiser  to  hand  the 
letters  back  to  Gray  himself :  Logan  has  just  read  them,  and  Gray  is 
now  hostile  to  Leicester  and  Elizabeth.  Logan,  however,  will  keep 
Walsingham  advised  of  any  anti-English  movements  of  Gray.  Thus 
Gray's  advice  that  Mary  should  die  is  advice  given  prior  to  the  death 
of  his  Astrophel,  and  to  his  own  sudden  (and  short-lived)  con- 
version. At  his  trial  (May  15,  1587)  Gray  confessed  that  in 
August  1586,  before  Sidney's  death  and  long  before  his  own  em- 
bassy, he  had  written  thus  to  England  :  "  If  the  Queen  of  England 


I 


THE   PREACHERS   AND   MARY   (1587).  329 

could  not  preserve  her  own  security  without  taking  his  majesty's 
mother's  Hfe,  because  mortui  nofi  mordent,  yet  it  were  no  ways 
meet  that  the  same  were  done  openly,  but  rather  by  some  quieter 
means."  ^* 

Thus,  under  criticism,  the  famous  tale  of  Gray,  with  his  mortui 
non  mordent,  dropped  like  poison  into  Elizabeth's  ear,  seems  to 
vanish.  The  "  whispering "  during  the  embassy  is  replaced  by 
writing  before  the  embassy.  We  shall  see  that  the  offences  which 
caused  the  fall  of  Gray  had  no  concern  with  treachery  during  his 
embassy.  We  have  also  seen  that  (though  an  enemy  of  Mary), 
when  once  he  was  charged  with  her  cause,  to  win  her  life  was,  in  his 
own  opinion,  his  true  interest.  This  brought  him  ill-will,  as  Robert 
Melville  and  Logan  wrote,  among  his  English  friends. 

On  Gray's  return  to  Edinburgh  Courcelles  wrote  to  France  (but 
appears  not  to  have  sent  the  message)  that  Gray  had  "  behaved  very 
honestly  in  England,"  and  being  now  "  malcontented  for  some 
secret  cause  with  England,"  offered  his  service  to  France.  Now 
Gray,  before  setting  out  on  his  embassy,  had  threatened  that  he 
would  be  avenged  on  Elizabeth  if  he  failed.  "  If  that  queen  do  no 
better  in  things  to  the  king  than  I  see  her  minded,  by  God  she  will 
deceive  herself.  And,  for  myself,  if  I  find  such  usage  as  hitherto  I 
have  received,  the  devil  learn  her ! "  ^^  As  to  Mary's  life,  Gray 
"  would  rather  win  the  thanks  for  it  than  otherwise."  On  the 
whole,  then,  it  seems  that  Gray  did  not  commit  the  crowning  treason 
for  which  his  name  reeks  in  tradition.  It  is  one  thing  to  say,  at  the 
first  news  of  the  Babington  conspiracy,  that  if  Mary  nmst  die,  it  had 
better  be  "  quietly,"  and  quite  another  thing  to  use  the  office  of  a 
suppliant  ambassador  for  the  destruction  of  Mary's  life.  The  Gray 
who  was  mourning  for  Sidney  did  not  sink  to  that  extreme  of  guilt, 
but  quitted  himself  "like  a  Scottis  man."  His  fall  was  the  result  of 
intrigues  concerned  with  religion. 

Meanwhile  the  preachers  took  the  oportunity  of  Mary's  approach- 
ing end  to  show  their  charity.  On  February  i,  1587,  an  Act  of 
Council  moved  the  clergy  to  pray  for  the  unhappy  princess,  that 
God  would  illumine  her  soul  with  the  light  of  His  only  Verity  and 
preserve  her  body  from  an  apparent  peril. ^^  The  preachers,  says 
Courcelles  on  February  28,  "were  so  seditious  as  to  refuse."  Dr 
M'Crie,  on  the  other  hand  (probably  not  without  good  grounds; 
see  note  67),  says,  "None  of  the  ministers  refused  to  pray  for  the 
queen."     Calderwood  writes,  "  They  refused  to  do  it  in  the  manner 


330  DEATH    OF   MARY   (1587). 

he  would  have  it  be  done,"  as  directly  or  indirectly  condemning 
Elizabeth,  or  suggesting  Mary's  innocence.  The  words  in  the  Act 
of  Council  do  neither  one  nor  the  other.  Probably  they  objected 
to  any  request  for  prayer,  for,  of  course,  that  was  not  direct  inspira- 
tion by  "  the  Spirit  of  God "  ;  also,  it  was  an  act  of  royal  inter- 
ference. James  later,  says  Spottiswoode,  explained  that  the  prayer 
was  only  for  Mary's  "  enlightenment  in  the  truth  "  (which  is  in  John 
Knox)  and  pardon.  That  is  precisely  the  meaning  of  the  Act 
of  Council.  However,  Mr  Cowper  was  in  the  pulpit  at  St  Giles's, 
and  James  bade  him  pray  for  the  queen.  Spottiswoode  reports 
that  Cowper  said  "  he  would  do  as  the  Spirit  of  God  should  direct 
him."  As  James  very  well  knew  what  that  always  meant,  he  made 
Cowper  come  out,  and  the  bishop  (Adamson)  went  into  the  pulpit, 
to  the  disgust  of  the  brethren  (February  3).  Cowper  was  warded  in 
Blackness,  but  soon  released.  Spottiswoode  avers  that  the  bishop 
produced  a  favourable  effect  on  his  audience.  Gray  had  written, 
before  his  embassy,  that  he  never  saw  the  people  so  united  as  in  the 
cause  of  Mary's  deliverance.  On  the  day  of  Cowper's  performance 
James  interdicted  Andrew  Melville  from  preaching. ^^  On  February  8 
Archbishop  Adamson  "compeared"  before  the  kirk-session  of  St 
Andrews,  with  the  king's  verbal  request  that  the  minister  would  pray 
for  his  mother's  "  conversion  and  amendment  of  life,  and  if  it  be 
God's  pleasure  to  preserve  her  from  this  personal  danger  wherein 
she  is  now,  that  she  may  hereafter  be  a  profitable  member  in  Christ's 
Kirk," — that  of  Scotland. 

The  kirk-session  graciously  acceded  to  his  majesty's  desire.  But 
Mary  was  in  danger  no  more.  On  that  very  day  was  consummated 
one  of  the  few  crimes  that  have  not  been  blunders.  The  only 
prison  which  her  enemies  could  trust  to  hold  the  queen  had  closed 
on  her : 

"  To-night  she  doth  inherit 
The  vasty  halls  of  Death." 

May  God  have  had  more  mercy  than  man  on  this  predestined  victim 
o\  uncounted  treasons,  of  unnumbered  wrongs  :  wrongs  that  warped, 
maddened,  and  bewildered  her  noble  nature,  but  never  quenched 
her  courage,  never  deadened  her  gratitude  to  a  servant,  never  shook 
her  loyalty  to  a  friend. 

"  She  was  a  bad  woman,  disguised  in  the  livery  of  a  martyr,  and, 
if  in  any  sense  at  all  she  was  suffering  for  her  religion,  it  was  because 
she  had  shown  herself  capable  of  those  detestable  crimes  which  in 


NOTES.  331 

the  sixteenth  century  appeared  to  be  the  proper  fruits  of  it."  So 
Mr  Froude,  as  if  the  professors  of  the  fire-new  gospel  of  Pro- 
testantism disdained  the  English  design  to  murder  Mary  and 
James,  or  the  swords  that  shed  the  blood  of  Beaton,  or  the 
daggers  that  clashed  in  the  brain  and  breast  of  Riccio. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   XII. 

'■  Spottiswoode,  ii.  321.  2  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  525-529. 

^  Thorpe's  Calendar,  i.  478,  482. 

*  Forbes- Leith,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  p.  192. 

^  Stafford  to  Burleigh,  October  30,  1583  ;  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  15. 

®  His  letters  to  Nau  and  Mary  have  been  published  in  part  by  Mr  Froude,  but 
are  fully  printed  in  the  '  Hatfield  Calendar,'  iii.  47,  1 17,  206.  Probably  they  were 
seized  later,  at  Chartley,  with  the  rest  of  Mary's  papers. 

^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  172,  173. 

^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  47-62. 

*  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  p.  16.  "It  is  given  out  that  he  is  not  the 
king's  son,  but  Davy's,  .  .  .  which  he  told  Cuddy  Armourer,  with  water  in  his 
eyes,  being  but  they  two  alone."  Armourer  was  a  servant  and  emissary  of 
Hunsdon. 

^"  Davison  to  Walsingham,  Edinburgh,  August  24,  1584  ;  Papers  relating  to 
the  Master  of  Gray,  pp.  5,  6. 

1^  Davison  to  Walsingham,  July  4  ;  Thorpe's  Calendar,  i.  477. 

^^  Calderwood,  iv.  147.  ^^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  479. 

1*  See  p.  308,  footnote. 

^^  Calderwood,  iv.   169  ;  Confession  of  Drummond  of  Blair. 

^'^  Davison  to  Walsingham,  August  8  ;  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  4S2. 

^^  State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxvi.  No.  17, 

^®  July  23,  James  to  Mary  ;  Murdin,  p.  434. 

^'  State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxvi.  No.  24. 

^  State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxvi.  No.  29. 

^^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  347;  Calderwood,  iv.  197,  198. 

^  State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxvi.  Nos.  50  and  91. 

^'  Calderwood,  iv.  239,  240. 

"^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  488,  489  ;  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  pp.  9,  10 — 
Commission  to  the  iVIaster,  October  14,  1584. 

'-'  Labanoff,  vi.  16-27  >  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  pp.  30-37. 

■•^  Froude,  vi.  39.     1870.  ^  Teulet,  iii.  326,  November  25. 

'■^'^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  490,  491. 

"■'  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  pp.  41-43. 

^"  March  12  ;  Labanoff,  vi.  123- 1 27.        ^'  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  545. 

'-  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  502.  ^'^  Brit.  Mus.,  Caligula,  C  viii.  fol.  222. 

^^  State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xxxviii.  No.  33. 

^  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  pp.  58-61.  '■"'  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  513. 


332  NOTES. 

^'^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  373-422.  "^  Calderwood,  iv.  448-465. 

^®  Calderwood,  iv.  4S5.  *•*  Calderwood,  iv.  401-503. 

*i  M'Crie,  Life  of  Andrew  Melville,  pp.  125-130  (1S56) ;  i.  362  (1819). 

•*-  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  581.  ^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  663, 

**  State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  April  i,  2. 

•**  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  590. 

■'^  Labanoff,  vi.  312,  322  ;  Mary  to  Charles  Paget. 

•*"  State  Papers,  MS.  Scot.,  vol.  xxxix.  No.  66. 

*®  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  pp.  106,  107. 

•"^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  157.  ^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  173,  174. 

*•  Couicelles'  Negotiations,  Bannatyne  Club,  p.  7. 

°-  Courcelles,  p.  11.     In  '  Hatfield  Calendar,'  iii.  185,  Keith  is  printed  "  Heath." 

^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  190-193.  ^'^  Courcelles,  p.  13;  October  31. 

^^  Courcelles,  p.  22.  ^'^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  538. 

^'  Spanish  State  Papers,  iii.  676. 

^*  The  Master  of  Gray  gives  practically  the  same  version,  but  makes  himself 
the  spokesman,  and  says  nothing  of  Melville  (Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  pp. 
129,  130). 

^^  Froude,  vi,  307  (1870). 

*"  Teulet,  Relations  Politiques,  iv.  166,  167;  Memoire  pour  les  Affaires  du  Roy. 
Mr  Froude  cites  "Advis  pour  M.  de  Villeroy,"  which  is  a  different  document. 

®'  Spottiswoode,  ii.  373.  ^^  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  p.  133. 

®^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  230  ;  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  p.  139. 

"*  Privy  Council  Register,  iv.  168. 

^  Courcelles,  pp.  37,  38  ;  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  192. 

®*  Privy  Council  Register,  iv.  140. 

^^  Calderwood,  iv.  606,  607  ;  Spottiswoode,  ii.  356  ;  M'Crie,  '  Life  of  Andrew 
Melville,'  pp.  131,  132;  i.  363-366  (1819).  Dr  M'Crie  quotes  Courcelles  as 
saying  that  "even  those  who  refused  at  first"  (to  pray  for  Mary)  "yielded." 
Courcelles  writes,  "  Some  of  the  ministers  agreed  to  pray,  .  .  .  but  others  there 
are  that  stand  still  fast,  .  .  .  but  they  are  fain  to  yield  as  well  as  others."  If 
they  did,  Dr  M'Crie  is  right. 


333 


CHAPTER    XIII. 


THE    KING    OF    MANY    ENEMIES. 


1587-1593- 

The  news  of  Mary's  death  aroused  in  Scotland  a  futile  storm  of 
indignation.  A  Catholic  informant  of  Cecil's,  Ogilvie  of  Pourie 
(already  mentioned  as  a  spy  and  double-dealer),  declared  that 
James  was  "desperate  of  his  mother's  life"  (probably  the  news  of 
her  death  was  unconfirmed) ;  that  the  country  was  eager  to  arm  ; 
that  the  Hamiltons  offered  to  burn  Newcastle  with  5000  men.i  * 
Had  James  been  a  prince  of  heart  and  spirit  he  would  long  ere 
this  have  summoned  his  subjects  to  meet  him,  "  boden  in  effeir  of 
war " ;  would  have  slipped  the  Hamiltons  on  Newcastle ;  Bothwell 
and  Buccleuch,  with  all  Liddell,  Esk,  and  Teviotdale,  on  Carlisle ; 
would  himself  have  mounted  and  ridden,  while  all  the  blue  bonnets 
were  over  the  border.  Through  Angus  he  might  have  kept  the 
preachers  in  hand,  or  might  have  cast  them  into  Blackness,  and 
thus  he  might  have  risked  a  second  Flodden,  losing  all  but  honour. 
Honour,  on  the  other  hand,  was  all  that  he  lost.  Calderwood 
says  that  he  "could  not  conceal  his  inward  joy,"  and  that  Maitland 
had  to  put  the  crowd  of  courtiers  out  of  the  room.^  Courcelles 
gives  a  different  account.  James  told  him  that  he  had  done  all 
that  could  be  done,  and  had  only  received  a  note  from  Elizabeth 
with  a  promise  to  send  Carey,  who  was  at  Berwick.  James  vowed 
that,  if  Mary  were  dead,  he  "  would  not  accord  with  the  price  of 
his  mother's  blood."      He   denied  the  story  that   he   had   written 

*  This  young  Ogilvie  of  Pourie  was  in  London  with  the  Master  of  Gray,  in  the 
Embassy.  He  sold  himself  to  Cecil,  as  Logan,  also  a  Catholic,  to  Walsingham. 
Ogilvie's  later  intrigues,  nominally  for  the  Catholics  and  James  with  Rome  and 
Spain,  were  more  or  less  devices  controlled  by  Cecil. 


334  AFTER    MARY'S    DEATH. 

to  Elizabeth,  putting  Mary's  head  at  her  disposal.  It  is  certain, 
however,  that  letters  from  Scotland,  and  obscure  dealings  of  Alex- 
ander Stewart,  did  enable  Elizabeth  to  harden  her  heart ;  so  the 
Master  of  Gray  wrote  to  the  king.^  The  Council  turned  towards 
France,  where  Archbishop  Beaton  was  still  to  be  ambassador  for 
Scotland,  to  the  horror  of  the  preachers,  who  feared  that  Henri  III. 
would  insist  on  toleration,  if  he  aided  James  to  avenge  Mary.  On 
March  5  James  still  pretended  not  to  believe  in  Mary's  death,  and 
awaited  the  return  of  his  messenger  to  Carey,  his  old  tutor,  Mr 
Peter  Young.  Meanwhile  he  assured  Courcelles  that  he  wished  to 
desert  the  English  league  for  the  Auld  Alliance. 

The  envoy  to  Berwick  brought  back  the  certainty  of  what  had 
befallen,  and  news  that  Elizabeth  had  put  her  unhappy  scapegoat, 
Davison,  in  the  Tower.  She  added  what  Mr  Froude  calls  "an 
abject  and  ignominious  " — we  may  say  a  lying  and  perjured — letter 
to  James.  Nobody  was  deceived.  Archibald  Douglas  announced 
that  George  Douglas  was  to  be  sent  on  a  mission  to  France : 
Courcelles  declares  that  James  now  suspected  and  desired  to  arrest 
the  Master  of  Gray,  but  by  April  3  he  deemed  that  James  would 
work  for  peace.  On  March  4  Walsingham  wrote  to  Maitland,  to 
be  shown  to  James,  a  long  pacific  memoir.*  French  and  Spanish 
aid,  he  said,  was  "  in  the  air "  :  it  always  was.  The  strength  of 
Scotland  was  utterly  inadequate  for  the  war.  James,  if  he  fought, 
would  lose,  perhaps  his  life,  certainly  all  prospect  of  the  English 
crown.  The  ambition  of  Philip,  the  condition  of  France  under  the 
League,  made  help  from  either  Power  out  of  the  question. 

The  true  nature  of  the  chances  of  the  Scottish  Catholics  from 
Spain  or  France  may  be  gathered  from  the  Spanish  State  Papers. 
The  English  priests,  Allen  and  Parsons,  were  dependent  on  Spain, 
and  on  Philip,  who  ^vas  determined  to  advance  his  own  claims  to 
the  English  crown,  James  being  barred  as  a  hopeless  heretic. 
Meanwhile  Robert  Bruce,  the  spy,  was  intriguing  for  Claude  Ham- 
ilton, Huntly,  and  Morton  (Maxwell)  both  with  Guise  and  with 
Philip,  and  the  Duke  of  Parma,  commanding  the  Spanish  forces 
in  the  Low  Countries.  Ready  to  take  aid  from  any  quarter,  Philip 
did  send  10,000  crowns  by  Bruce  for  the  Catholic  Earls,  and  Bruce 
arranged  with  Parma  a  feasible  plot  for  bringing  over  Spanish  troops 
in  grain  vessels.  But  it  was  the  belief  of  Philip,  and  of  most  of  his 
advisers,  that  James  would  remain  a  resolute  heretic.  The  Spanish 
aid  to  the  Scottish  Catholics  would  only  be  the  means  towards  a 


DILEMMA   OF  ELIZABETH.  335 

Scottish  diversion  in  case  of  a  Spanish  invasion  of  England.  Bruce 
did  see  James  himself,  and  found  him  in  manner  genial,  but  an 
obdurate  Protestant,  under  Maitland,  "a  heretic  and  an  atheist." 
Overcharged  with  expenses,  Philip  did  not  back  the  Catholic  earls, 
time  was  wasted,  the  plot  of  the  grain  ships  was  delayed  till  too 
late  in  the  season,  and  though  Morton  (Maxwell)  went  to  Spain, 
offering  to  hold  Kirkcudbright  open  for  the  Armada,  though  Huntly 
promised  to  secure  Leith,  though  an  advance  on  England  by  way  of 
Scotland  was  probably  the  wisest  plan,  the  Scottish  Catholics  were 
left,  detached,  poor,  and  powerless,  while  England  was  the  aim  of 
the  Armada.  Yet  for  many  years,  till  1603,  the  Scottish  Catholics 
continued  to  traffic  with  Spain,  and  to  hope  for  troops  and  money 
from  Spain,  while  usually  disbelieving  that  James  would  be  con- 
verted. James,  says  Parma  to  Philip,  "  becomes  more  and  more 
confirmed  in   his  heresy"  (1588).^ 

All  this  futility  of  Spanish  promises  Walsingham  clearly  discerned. 
He  added  that  James  might  change  his  creed  :  he  would  but  be 
the  more  distrusted.  The  world  must  acknowledge  that  James 
had  done  all  that  man  might  do — revenge  was  unchristian,  true 
honour  was  not  outraged,  success  was  wholly  impossible,  if  war 
was  attempted. 

All  this  was  very  true — nay,  extremely  obvious.  But  it  did  not 
follow  that  James  need  continue  to  take  money  from  hands  dipped 
in  his  mother's  blood.  Of  money,  however,  from  whatever  quarter, 
James  thought  no7i  olet.  Meanwhile  (March  1587)  Elizabeth  carried 
out  the  cruel  farce  of  trying  and  ruining  Davison,  her  scapegoat ; 
and  Cecil,  in  instructions  to  Carey,  was  obliged  to  sink  to  Eliz- 
abeth's level  of  meanness  (April  3).^  James  had  Elizabeth  at  an 
avail.  If  she  was  innocent,  if  Davison  and  others  were  guilty, 
then,  he  said,  let  them  be  given  up  to  him.  At  present  her 
honour  was  not  cleared.  Elizabeth  was  in  the  same  position  as 
Mary  had  been  in  the  commissions  at  York  and  Westminster 
(1568)  as  to  her  guilt  of  Darnley's  death.  Like  Mary,  she  finally 
said  that,  as  a  crowned  queen,  she  was  answerable  only  to  God. 
Several  drafts  of  her  shifting  replies  exist ;  at  last  she  screwed  up 
her  courage  to  be  firm.  Clearly  she  did  not  share  Walsingham's 
assurance  that  James  was  powerless,  and  that  France  and  Spain 
would  not  move.     Yet  nothing  could  be  more  manifest. 

In  Scotland  matters  were  in  suspense  till  the  assembling  of  the 
Estates.      Arran  had  been  trying  to  fish  in  the  troubled  waters, 


336  THE    MASTER   SUFFERS    FOR    HIS   RELIGION. 

accusing,  in  a  letter  to  Claude  Hamilton,  several  of  James's  Council 
of  accession  to  Mary's  death,  and  of  a  design  to  hand  him  over  to 
England.  Among  the  accused  we  only  know  the  name  of  Angus,  who 
was  arrested  :  he,  at  least,  cannot  have  been  of  those  who  conspired 
against  Mary's  life.  Orders  were  issued  that  Arran  should  be  brought 
forward  to  justify  his  accusations.'^  The  matter  troubled  James, 
who,  in  fact,  was  vainly  tr)nng  to  get  Elizabeth  to  bribe  him  by  the 
Lennox  estates  in  England.^  On  May  lo  Sir  William  Stewart, 
Arran's  brother,  accused  the  Master  of  Gray  of  his  betrayal  of  Mary 
(concerning  which  we  have  already  spoken)  and  of  divers  other 
offences.  He  had,  it  was  alleged,  taken  a  secret  part  in  the  Raid 
of  Stirling  (1585),  which  we  know  to  be  true  from  the  Master's  own 
description  of  that  revolution.  He  had  also  dealt  with  France  in  the 
interest  of  "liberty  of  conscience,"  a  charge  the  most  damning  that 
could  be  brought  against  any  man  in  reformed  Scotland.  He  had 
devised  the  death  of  Maitland,  and  other  advisers  of  James,  by  aid 
of  Arran  and  Morton.  There  were  other  charges.  Gray  and  his 
denouncer  had  probably  been  in  a  conspiracy  together  to  oust  Mait- 
land, and  the  lords  who  returned  from  exile  at  the  Raid  of  Stirling, 
and  it  is  likely  that  Gray  had  been  dealing  with  the  Hamiltons  and 
the  Catholics.  He  admitted  that  he  had  worked  for  liberty  of 
conscience,  and  generally  to  revolutionary  ends ;  while  his  answer 
as  to  the  charge  of  betraying  Mary  has  been  already  given.  The 
Estates  prayed  that  the  king  would  spare  the  Master's  life  and  lands. 
Gray  was  certainly  betrayed  by  Stewart,  who  was  to  have  gone  as 
ambassador  to  France  for  the  renewal  of  the  alliance.^  But  Richard 
Douglas  of  Whittingham,  nephew  of  Archibald  and  his  intelligencer 
from  Scotland,  writes  (May  22)  a  different  story.  Gray's  attempt 
to  obtain  liberty  of  conscience  by  aid  of  France  was  really  his 
principal  offence,  "  suppose  that  he  confessed  somewhat  also  that, 
before  his  last  being  in  Englatid,  he  had  written  into  that  country 
against  our  sovereign's  mother's  life."  James  was  being  much  urged 
to  war  with  England,  but,  "  so  long  as  he  may  with  honour,  his 
majesty  is  willing  to  abstain."  ^^ 

The  Parliament  opened  on  July  8  at  Edinburgh,  and  was  pro- 
rogued to  July  23.  The  king's  arrival  at  his  majority  was  declared. 
The  liberties  of  the  Kirk  were  ratified.  Death  was  decreed  against 
Jesuits  and  seminary  priests ;  in  only  one  case,  much  later,  was  this 
threat  fulfilled.  Even  hearers  of  mass,  or  distributors  of  Catholic 
books,   were  menaced  with  entire  confiscation.      The  temporalities 


PARLIAMENT   OF    1587.  337 

of  benefices  were  annexed  to  the  Crown,  with  certain  reserves  of 
vested  interests.  This  meant  the  downfall  of  bishops,  their  ex- 
clusion from  Parliament.  Six  members  of  each  Estate  were  formed 
into  a  commission  to  deal  with  the  necessary  taxation  for  the  king's 
marriage.  There  was  the  usual  revocation  of  grants  made  during 
the  royal  minority.  Quarrelling  for  precedence  of  vote  or  place  in 
Parliament  was  denounced,  and  a  commission  was  appointed  to 
consider  claims.  The  minor  barons,  to  be  elected  by  forty-shilling 
freeholders,  were  called  to  Parliament,  as  under  the  law  of  James  I. 
Persons  accused  of  treason  were  permitted  to  employ  counsel.^^  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  in  such  trials  the  accused  could  only  hope  for 
acquittal  when  their  friends  were  in  power,  as  at  the  trial  of 
Archibald  Douglas,  or  of  Bothwell  for  witchcraft.  Game  laws  were 
re-enacted,  and  measures,  often  vainly  renewed,  were  taken  to 
diminish  the  number  of  fraudulent  notaries.  For  five  years  no 
new  notaries  were  to  be  admitted ;  in  future  they  must  know 
Latin  "reasonably,"  must  have  served  seven  years  with  Writers  to 
the  Signet  or  other  responsible  lawyers,  and,  generally,  were  to  be 
under  inspection.  Forgery  was  a  rampant  crime,  of  which  we  shall 
see  a  notable  instance  later.  Theft  by  landed  men  (as  when  Logan 
of  Restalrig  committed  burglary  in  the  house  of  Nesbit  of  Newton) 
and  murder  under  trust  were  declared  to  be  treason.  Interest  on 
money  was  limited  to  ten  per  cent  yearly.  With  fiscal  and  others  of 
the  usual  good  resolutions  (Acts  of  Parliament  were  little  more) 
appeared  one  in  favour  of  "  universal  concord."  Other  good 
resolutions  were  concerned,  to  no  avail,  with  maintenance  of  law 
and  order  in  the  Highlands  and  Borders. ^'-^ 

The  Parliament  ended,  though  nothing  is  said  about  it  in  the 
official  record,  with  a  dramatic  scene  in  which  the  lords  besought 
James  to  lead  them  against  England.  This  is  reported  by 
Courcelles  and  others,^^  and  is  doubtless  true.  James  thanked  his 
kneeling  Estates,  but  said  that  he  must  wait  his  opportunity. 
Another  dramatic  scene,  with  elements  of  the  grotesque,  was  the 
public  reconciliation  and  banquet  of  all  the  lords  in  Edinburgh,  so 
admirably  described  by  James  in  'The  Fortunes  of  Nigel.'  An 
order  for  the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits  was  made,  and  the  Protestants 
were  pleased,  while  Philip  was  not  sorry.  James,  his  rival,  was  now 
too  manifestly  a  hopeless  heretic.  Archibald  Douglas  was  kept  as 
ambassador  to  England  (on  a  semi-official  unrecognised  footing), 
and  his  favour  varied  with  James's  hopes  or  fears  as  to  his  success 

VOL.    II.  Y 


338  THE   CASE   OF    HABAKKUK. 

in  obtaining  for  the  king  a  written  acknowledgment  of  his  right 
to  the  English  crown,  with  a  gift  of  lands  in  the  north  of  England. 
James  was  now  very  Protestant,  since  Philip  of  Spain  was  intent  on 
securing  the  rights  bequeathed  to  him  by  Mary,  and  as,  despite 
Morton's  (Maxwell's)  intrigues  in  Spain,  whither  he  had  sailed,  there 
was  clearly  no  chance  of  disinterested  help,  thence  or  from  France. 
The  Scottish  ambassadors  had  gone  to  Denmark ;  but  du  Bartas, 
the  poet  and  scholar,  arrived  in  Scotland,  was  feasted  by  the  king, 
was  present  at  his  friendly  controversy  with  Andrew  Melville  in  St 
Andrews,  and  was  thought  to  be  proposing  for  James  the  hand  of 
the  Princess  of  Navarre. 

The  summer  was  marked  by  Border  raids  into  England.  These 
were  caused,  according  to  the  letters  of  Richard  Douglas,  Archi- 
bald's nephew,  not  by  revenge  for  Queen  Mary,  but  by  "  plain 
necessity  " ;  the  Liddesdale  men  would  not  starve  while  there  were 
beeves  in  Cumberland.  Thus,  though  the  Scottish  Catholic  lords 
were  as  usual  intriguing  abroad,  James  remained  true  to  his  inter- 
ests in  England. 

The  "  Premier,"  in  modern  language,  was  now  Lethington's 
brother  and  successor  as  Secretary,  Sir  John  Maitland  of  Thirl- 
stane,  "the  Chancellor."  He  held  the  office,  with  interruptions, 
till  1595.  He  had  the  family  wit  and  the  family  craft,  and  was 
devoid  of  scruples  based  on  sentiment  —  devoid,  in  fact,  of  any 
scruples  (he  had  represented  Lethington  at  the  scene  of  Darnley's 
murder) ;  but  he  was  a  fairly  good  Protestant,  and  adhered  to  the 
English  alliance.  James,  like  his  predecessors,  was  much  vexed 
by  feuds  :  on  a  large  scale  in  the  Border  and  the  Highlands,  while 
in  St  Andrews,  Edinburgh,  and  other  towns,  quiet  citizens  were  apt 
to  be  attacked  by  armed  men — a  professor  on  his  way  to  lecture,  a 
Writer  to  the  Signet  on  his  way  to  kirk. 

As  an  illustration  of  daily  hfe  we  may  take  the  case  of  Habakkuk 
Bisset,  W.S.  This  gentleman  is  said  to  have  received  his  Christian, 
or  rather  Hebrew,  name  in  a  singular  way.  His  father  was  Queen 
INIary's  caterer,  and  requested  her  to  name  the  child.  She  was  just 
going  to  chapel,  and  chose  the  first  name  at  which  the  Bible  opened. 
It  was  Habakkuk.  Arrived  at  years  of  discretion,  Habakkuk  had 
the  misfortune  to  be  engaged  as  agent  for  the  brother  of  the  laird 
of  Cockpen  against  two  young  Hamiltons  of  Prestoun.  They  con- 
ceived that  ce  coquin  d' Habakkuk  est  capable  de  tout,  and  vowed 
revenge.     One  afternoon   they   found   poor   Habakkuk   "  going   in 


CONDITION   OF   THE   COUNTRY.  339 

peaceable  and  quiet  manner  "  to  evening  prayers,  for  Scottish  kirks 
in  that  age  were  still  open  "on  lawful  days,"  a  relic  of  idolatry 
which  has  been  abolished.  The  young  wretches  set  on  Habakkuk 
in  church,  like  a  new  St  Thomas  of  Canterbury;  they  broke  his 
head  with  the  pommels  of  their  swords,  they  chased  him  out  by  the 
west  porch,  and  they  cut  off  two  fingers  of  his  left  hand.  The  two 
Hamiltons  were  denounced  as  rebels.^* 

Such  were  the  accidents  of  everyday  life  in  an  age  when  the 
Town  attacked  St  Mary's  College  at  St  Andrews,  and  the  Gown, 
under  Andrew  Melville,  defended  the  position  with  gallantry  and 
success.  "  Spuilzies,"  or  high-handed  robberies,  were  frequent,  so 
were  cattle-houghings ;  and  skirmishes  with  loss  of  life,  and  a  blood- 
feud  to  follow,  were  not  uncommon.  As  to  the  political  situation 
of  the  country,  we  have  a  careful  memoir  drawn  up  by  Archibald 
Douglas  (November  14,  1587).  The  situation  showed  "a  prince 
grieved  in  mind,  and  a  number  of  nobility  almost  equally  divided 
anent  their  religion  into  Protestant  and  Papist,  with  a  number  of 
indifferent  religion."  The  Indifferents  had  joined  the  Catholics  to 
urge  revenge  for  Mary's  death,  and  alliance  with  Spain  or  France, 
their  demand  being  religious  toleration.  The  king  was  trimming 
between  these  factions.  But  few  nobles  were  Protestants :  the 
Kirk  relied  on  "  the  meanest  sort  of  gentlemen,  called  lairds, 
whose  second  sons  and  brethren  are  for  the  most  part  merchants 
and  travellers  by  sea,"  while  all  the  burgesses  were  Protestant. 
The  Protestant  nobles  were  calm,  believing  that  James  would  never 
change  his  religion.  The  lairds  and  tradesmen  were  galled  by  "  the 
infinite  number  of  piracies "  committed  by  the  English,  of  which 
the  State  Papers  contain  countless  records.  Piracy  was  a  flourishing 
English  profession  at  this  time,  Drake  being  the  most  notorious  of 
the  sea-thieves  who  preyed  on  the  commerce  of  the  world.  All 
Anstruther  set  forth  after  an  English  pirate,  ran  him  to  shore 
in  Suffolk,  took  his  ship  and  six  prisoners,  and  hanged  two  at 
Anstruther,  four  at  St  Andrews.  Douglas  adds  that,  as  there 
are  rumours  of  landings  of  aliens  (probably  in  Galloway,  whither 
Morton  had  returned  from  Spain),  England  could  expect  but  cold 
support  from  his  injured  countrymen. 

Archibald's  motive,  of  course,  was  to  alarm  Elizabeth,  and  induce 
her,  at  least  privately,  to  acknowledge  James  as  her  successor ;  or 
promise,  at  least,  not  to  prejudice  his  case,  nor  to  give  Arabella 
Stuart  in  marriage  without  his  consent.     She  ought  also  to  make 


340  THE   ARMADA   (1588). 

amends  for  the  piracies  of  her  subjects.^^  James  was  discontented 
with  Elizabeth's  answer  to  this  appeal,  and  refused  her  proffer  of 
^4000  for  his  assistance.  He  had  less  reason  to  dread  rebellion 
than  Elizabeth  had,  he  said,  and  was  on  friendly  terms  with  all 
foreign  princes  except  herself.  The  nobles  had  no  grudge  against 
him,  except  for  his  slackness  in  avenging  his  mother.  Hunsdon  at 
Berwick  was  working  for  amity,  but  as  he  distrusted  Archibald 
Douglas,  the  two  were  likely  to  interfere  with  each  other,  so 
Richard  Douglas  reported  (December  27,    isSy).^*^ 

The  opening  of  the  year  1588  found  Scotland  troubled  by  the 
expected  advent  of  the  Invincible  Armada.  The  Kirk  (February  6, 
1588)  held  a  special  Assembly,  denouncing  Huntly,  Herries,  and 
others,  with  a  number  of  Jesuits.  James  had  amused  himself  in 
the  winter  by  writing  a  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  "and  in  set- 
ting out  of  sermons  thereupon  against  the  Papists  and  Spaniards."  i'' 
Throughout  February  and  March  Huntly,  Herries,  Glencairn,  and 
others  were  now  obscurely  and  timidly  conspiring  with  Parma  and 
Philip,  through  Colonel  Sempill,  whose  life  is  a  romance,  now 
urging  James  to  dismiss  Maitland  and  others  of  his  advisers. 
Herries  raided  and  spoiled  the  lands  of  Drumlanrig  and  of  Douglas, 
Provost  of  Lincluden.^^  Hunsdon  denounced  Archibald  Douglas 
as  no  ambassador;  he  had  been  discharged — and  Hunsdon  had 
seen  the  documents  under  James's  hand — ever  since  the  Master  of 
Gray  was  in  London.  "  If  he  come  into  Scotland,  the  king  will 
take  his  life."  Yet  Richard  Douglas  had  always  been  dealing  with 
Archibald  for  James,  as  if  the  "  old  fox  "  were  duly  commissioned, 
and  Archibald  had  constantly  negotiated  with  Cecil,  and,  in  personal 
interviews,  with  Elizabeth.  James  had  apparently  made  arrange- 
ments for  disavowing  and  betraying  the  traitor,  if  that  course  proved 
convenient.  1^  The  vast  preparations  for  Philip's  invasion  were  going 
forward,  and  the  question  was.  Which  party  would  James  espouse  ? 
In  spite  of  Hunsdon's  allegations,  he  was  writing  with  his  own  hand 
to  Archibald  Douglas,  and,  according  to  Richard  Douglas,  would 
take  the  English  side  (April  28)."''  On  May  7  James  ordered  the 
country  to  arm,  but  the  cautious  terms  of  this  proclamation  show 
that  he  committed  himself  to  no  more  than  armed  neutrality.-^ 

At  this  juncture  Huntly,  in  the  Catholic  interest,  was  bidding  for 
Archibald  Douglas ;  he  "  sought  you  so  earnestly,  and  offered  me 
so  fair,"  says  Richard  Douglas,  who  was  to  manage  the  sale.  But 
Huntly's  heart  failed  him,  and  whatever  plot  he  meant  to  concoct 


DEATH   OF   ANGUS.  34I 

with  Archibald  fell  to  the  ground.  Richard  Douglas  returned  from 
his  secret  journey  to  Huntly,  and,  after  an  interview  with  James, 
gave  Archibald  some  cause  to  feel  more  secure.  "  He  would  be 
served  by  you,  .  .  .  seeing  you  knew  sufficiently  the  end  whereat 
he  shot,"  the  crown  of  England  (May  26).^^  At  this  time  James 
attacked  Morton  (Maxwell),  the  most  dangerous  of  the  southern 
Catholics,  the  man  who  might  have  opened  the  south-western  ports 
to  Spain.  Morton,  newly  home  from  Spain  and  France,  showed  his 
hand  too  soon  :  his  allies,  Huntly,  Herries,  and  Claude  Hamilton, 
left  him  to  take  his  chance.  The  king  took  Lochmaben  Castle, 
hanged  some  of  the  garrison,  and  captured  Morton  himself.^^ 
Angus,  the  faithful  of  the  Kirk,  was  made  Warden  on  the  west 
Marches, — clearly  James  was  decided  on  the  Protestant  side, — and 
Sir  William  Stewart,  Arran's  brother  and  the  denouncer  of  the 
Master,  was  in  high  renown.  Within  a  few  weeks  both  of  those 
men  were  dead.  On  July  10  Stewart  and  Bothwell  gave  each  other 
the  lie,  in  James's  presence.  Stewart  added  an  insult  common 
among  street-boys  of  the  lewder  sort.  On  the  30th  of  July  the 
enemies  met  in  the  High  Street.  Stewart  stabbed  one  of  Bothwell's 
men,  lost  his  sword,  and  fled.  Bothwell  followed  and  wounded 
him  with  his  rapier.  "  Sir  William  fleeth  to  a  hollow  cellar,  where 
they  stabbed  him  with  whingers  while  he  was  despatched." 

So  perished  one  brother-in-law  of  John  Knox,  a  man  daring  and 
perfidious.  The  death  of  Angus  was  believed  to  have  been  caused 
by  witchcraft.  Pious  to  the  last,  he  refused  all  help  by  counter- 
witchcraft,  an  interesting  experiment  still  practised  in  rural  England. 
The  witches  used  the  old  scheme,  an  image  of  wax  melted  before 
a  fire,  or,  at  least,  this  was  rumoured.^'^  This  is  the  version  of 
Calderwood,  but  a  very  different  story  was  later  told  by  Bothwell. 
That  adventurer,  himself  under  a  charge  of  treasonable  sorcery, 
confessed  that  he  had,  indeed,  dealt  with  a  wizard,  Richard 
Graham,  but  solely  in  the  interests  of  Angus.  It  was  Lady  Angus 
who  besought  Bothwell  to  bring  the  wizard  to  heal  her  bewitched 
husband  :  Bothwell  had  no  other  dealings  with  the  servant  of  Satan. 
This  ingenious  defence,  whereby  the  pious  Angus  shielded  Bothwell's 
character,  was  apparently  the  invention  of  John  Colville.^^ 

Angus  the  Presbyterian  was  succeeded  by  Douglas  of  Glenbervie, 
who,  dying  soon,  was  followed  by  his  son,  a  Catholic.  The  Max- 
well Earl  of  Morton  lost  that  title,  which  fell  to  the  betrayer  of 
Northumberland,  Douglas  of  Lochleven.     The  evidences  of  James's 


342  "fiddler's  wages." 

Protestant  spirit,  especially  his  action  against  Morton,  who  might 
have  opened  the  ports  of  the  Stewartry  to  Spain,  encouraged  Eliz- 
abeth. She  sent  Ashby  to  Holyrood  with  golden  promises.  He 
found  James  at  his  devotion,  and  his  letter  was  written  (August  6) 
during  the  agony  of  the  Armada.  Presbyterian  Scotland  had  been 
greatly  alarmed. 

"Terrible  was  the  fear,  piercing  were  the  preachings,  earnest, 
zealous,  and  fervent  were  the  prayers,  sounding  were  the  sighs  and 
sobs,  and  abounding  were  the  tears "  of  the  Brethren  ;  so  James 
Melville  writes.  The  end  was  the  arrival  of  a  battered  ship  and  a 
starving  crew  of  Spaniards  on  the  Anstruther  beach.  James  Melville 
told  the  captain  that,  though  enemies  of  the  Pope,  yet  the  Scots  were 
men,  and  moved  by  human  compassion.  So  kail,  porridge,  fish,  and 
trenchant  remarks  on  popish  errors  were  supplied  to  the  hungry 
mariners,  one  of  whom  was  Gomez  de  Medina,  a  gentleman  not 
ungrateful.-^  The  coasts  of  the  isles  of  the  west  were  strewrv^ith 
wrecks  of  "that  great  fleet  invincible";  the  danger  was  past  and 
over,  whether  of  a  Spanish  landing  in  the  Stewartry  or  of  a  Catholic 
rising.  James  had  taken  his  part  "  against  all  foreign  enemies  of  this 
island,"  and  was  thought,  "  by  not  the  unwisest,  too  sudden  to  declare 
himself  before  being  assured  of  that  he  craved  "  ;  so  Richard  Douglas 
wrote  (August  5).  Elizabeth,  in  her  alarm,  had  offered  that,  on 
assurance  under  the  Great  Seal,  jNIary's  death  should  not  prejudice 
James's  claims  :  he  was  also  to  have  a  duchy  in  England,  a  pension, 
^5000  in  ready  money,  and  a  guard  of  fifty  gentlemen.  But  in  a 
week,  the  peril  from  Spain  being  ended,  "  it  seems  they  would  go 
back  from  these  offers."-'^ 

James,  in  fact,  as  the  Master  of  Gray  said,  "got  but  fiddler's 
wages,"  like  all  who  trusted  the  falsest  and  meanest  of  women.  He 
was  furious,  he  was  enraged  against  Archibald  Douglas  ;  the  Catholic 
lords  grew  stronger,  they  intrigued  with  Spain,  they  expected  the  king 
to  combine  with  them,  and  Richard  Douglas  proposed  that  Archibald 
should  come  to  terms  with  Huntly.  The  death  of  Leicester,  with 
whom  James  was  friendly,  complicated  affairs,  and  James  proceeded 
to  pay  court  to  Walsingham.  In  November  Elizabeth  sent  Thomas 
Fowler  to  deal  with  James.  He  found  matters  going  ill ;  the  Spanish 
faction  was  in  credit,  the  king  (Ashton  reported,  December  13)  was 
running  to  his  own  destruction,  the  murder  of  the  Due  de  Guise  was 
apt  to  cause  Philip  of  Spain  to  come  to  terms  with  Scotland.^^ 
Huntly  had  dallied  with  the  Kirk  (partly  that  he  might  be  allowed 


SCOTTISH   CATHOLICS   AND   SPAIN    (15S9).  343 

to  wed  the  sister  ot  Lennox) ;  but  he  was  not  long  to  continue,  even 
in  a  shadowy  way,  a  Presbyterian.  The  preachers  held  a  thanksgiving 
for  the  murder  of  Guise ;  for  both  rehgions  impartially  rejoiced  in 
the  judicious  use  of  the  dagger  (December  30).-^  James  Melville 
revels  in  "a  maist  remarkable  work  of  God's  justice,  making  King 
Hendrie  to  cause  his  Guard  stick  the  Due  de  Guise  under  trust,  .  .  . 
and  syne  a  Jacobin  friar  maist  treasonably  to  stick  the  king.  .  . 
Thus  God  glorified  His  name  most  remarkably."  The  Deity,  it  is 
to  be  understood,  conducted  political  enterprises  after  the  fashion  of 
Philip  of  Spain,  Elizabeth,  or  any  other  contemporary  prince. 

The  Kirk  throughout  all  this  period  was  in  a  nervous  condition, 
and  the  preachers  were  usually  very  well  informed,  doubtless  through 
the  English  embassy.  In  January  1589  "the  most  vigilant  mini- 
sters "  convened  in  Edinburgh,  and  warned  the  king  of  his  danger 
from  Papists.  He  was  begged  not  to  interfere  between  the  Kirk  and 
the  Catholics  whom  it  might  be  molesting :  Jesuits  ought  to  be 
hunted  for  ;  some  of  the  ministers  and  the  laity  ought  to  be  given  an 
inquisitorial  commission  to  explore  what  nobles  and  others  "  profess 
religion."  James's  own  sincerity  in  the  truth  being  doubted,  he  is 
asked  to  expel  all  officials  who  may  be  suspected  of  Catholic  tend- 
encies.    These  petitions  were  granted.^** 

In  February  it  appeared  that  the  preachers  were  no  '"drytting 
prophets"  (as  Lethington  said  of  Knox);  there  was  really  a  Catholic 
plot.  Cecil  had  laid  hands  on  one  Pringle,  agent  of  Colonel 
Sempill,  and  seized  letters  from  Huntly  and  Errol  to  the  Duke 
of  Parma  and  the  King  of  Spain.  Huntly  and  Errol  were  with 
James  when  the  letters  were  handed  to  him.  This  Pringle  had 
been  ex_amined  in  England  on  February  15  :  he  was  a  soldier  of 
fortune  who  had  served  on  both  sides  in  the  Low  Countries.  He 
had  dealt  for  Robert  Bruce  (Huntly's  agent  with  Philip,  a  singularly 
perfidious  double  spy  and  trafficker)  with  Huntly,  Bothwell,  Craw- 
ford, and  Lord  Claude.  With  the  letters  Elizabeth  sent  a  note  of 
remonstrance.  James,  she  said,  seemed  to  hold  such  traitors  "  dear 
and  near,  with  a  parentage  of  near  alliance,"  referring  to  Huntly's 
recent  marriage  with  a  sister  of  the  young  Duke  of  Lennox.  "  Good 
Lord,  methinks  I  do  dream  ;  no  king  a  week  could  bear  this  !  "  The 
letter  by  Huntly  was  of  January  24  ;  James  received  it  on  February 
27.  Huntly  in  his  epistle  regretted  that  the  Armada  had  not  touched 
at  Scotland,  where  it  would  have  found  countless  allies.  He  gave 
advice  for  a  better  conducted  enterprise.      He  lamented  his  recent 


344  THE    KING   "WEARY   OF    LIFE." 

verbal  adherence  to  the  Kirk.  Bruce  in  his  letter  frankly  confessed 
that  what  the  Catholic  lords  wanted  was  gold  "for  some  pretended 
occasions  which  will  never  fall  out  as  they  promise."  Huntly  had 
tried  to  get  at  the  money,  but  Bruce  had  defeated  him.  Bruce's 
character  was  execrable,  but  his  inferences  as  to  Huntly  were 
probably  judicious.  All  this  was  pleasant  hearing  for  Huntly,  if  he 
was  present,  as  Calderwood  says,  when  the  letters  were  given  to 
James  ;  and  it  must  have  been  agreeable  to  Maxwell  to  hear  it  averred 
that  a  Jesuit  secured  his  release  from  prison.  Errol  had  to  listen  to 
the  tale  of  his  conversion  by  Father  Edmund  Hay ;  Crawford  to  the 
narrative  of  his  theological  debts  to  Father  Creighton.  It  seems 
hardly  credible  that  their  own  letters  were  rehearsed  before  any 
of  these  peccant  noblemen  ;  if  they  were,  the  scene  must  have  been 
of  the  highest  comedy.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Bruce  was  right  in  say- 
ing that  what  the  Catholic  noblemen  of  Scotland  wanted,  in  the  first 
place,  was  doubloons,  pistoles,  and  pieces  of  eight.  All  parties  were 
pensioners  :  James  and  the  Protestant  lords  and  lairds,  of  England ; 
the  opposite  faction,  of  Spain  or  France. 

Huntly  was  now  warded  in  the  castle,  where  James  and  Maitland 
dined  with  him  next  day.  He  was  presently  released,  riding  off  at 
the  head  of  200  Gordons,  and  Claude  Hamilton  was  imprisoned. 
By  March  14  Huntly  was  inviting  James  to  dinner,  Errol  was  with 
them ;  but  as  a  rising  of  the  town  was  feared,  Huntly  rode  north  : 
he  is  said  to  have  asked  James  to  accompany  him.^^  James  had 
one  of  his  tender  fondnesses  for  Huntly ;  he  also  suspected  that  the 
letters  attributed  to  him  and  other  Catholics  had  been  forged  in 
England.  Ashby  and  Fowler  now  reported  James's  condition  as 
one  of  melancholy.  His  life  was  made  a  torment  by  the  intrigues 
and  feuds  of  his  nobles.  To  Huntly  he  was  sincerely  attached : 
Bothwell  he  considered,  so  he  had  told  Courcelles,  as  a  feather-head  ; 
but  Bothwell  had  a  native  love  of  mischief,  and  was  powerful  in  the 
disorderly  region  of  Liddesdale,  and  among  the  Humes,  Douglases, 
and  Logans  of  Berwickshire  and  East  Lothian.  He  was  also  dear  to 
all  ladies.  Errol  regarded  Maitland,  the  Chancellor,  as  his  private 
enemy.  Writing  to  Mr  Bruce  (the  eminent  preacher,  not  the  intriguer 
with  whom  he  has  been  confused),  Errol  professed  that  Maitland 
had  accused  him  "  behind  his  back."  He  was  ready  "  to  be  tried 
by  the  Kirk's  self"  (March  22,  1589).^-  But  Fowler  reported 
Errol  as  not  likely  to  surrender  (March  20),  and  James  as  "weary 
of  life."  ^^     He  was  still  making  excuses  for  Huntly ;  and  Bothwell, 


THE   KING   PURSUES   HIS   REBELS.  345 

like  Errol,  was  at  feud  with  Maitland.  In  fact,  to  get  rid  of  that 
powerful  minister,  not  a  man  of  their  own  rank,  but  indispensable  to 
the  State,  was  the  motive  that  united  Protestants  like  Bothwell  (if 
he  was  a  Protestant)  and  Catholics  like  Huntly.  The  old  story  of 
Lauder  Bridge  and  the  hanging  of  the  low-born  advisers  of  James 
III.  was  ever  the  ideal  of  the  nobles  :  not  that  Maitland  was  low- 
born, his  house  was  old  and  good,  but  he  was  not  of  the  greatest 
noblesse,  and  he  had  intellect,  which  was  intolerable. 

Errol  was  "  put  to  the  horn  " — denounced  outlaw — the  day  after 
he  wrote  to  Bruce.  These  plots  of  the  nobles  recur  in  a  stereotyped 
and  tedious  fashion.  A  rebellion  for  the  actual  deposition  of  the 
king  was  practically  impossible.  It  was  said  of  James  that  he  was 
like  a  monkey.  "  If  I  have  Jocko  in  my  hands,  I  can  make  him 
bite  you  \  if  you  have  Jocko,  you  can  make  him  bite  me."  The 
constant  purpose  of  malcontents,  therefore,  was  to  get  James  into 
their  hands,  and  out  of  those  of  whoever  held  him,  Morton,  Gowrie, 
Arran,  or  in  this  case  Maitland.  At  present  the  idea  was  that 
Bothwell,  probably  with  Montrose,  should  seize  the  king  and  "  dis- 
court"  or  slay  Maitland,  while  Huntly  and  Errol  should  descend 
from  the  North  with  the  Gordons  and  the  Hays.  James  was  at 
Halton,  where  the  capture  should  have  been  made.  He  got  news 
of  the  scheme  and  rode  to  Edinburgh,  whence  (April  7)  he 
summoned  his  loyal  subjects  of  Fife  and  the  South  to  repair  to 
him,  "boden"  with  hackbuts  and  spears.  On  the  loth  of  April  a 
summons  was  issued  against  the  armed  and  banded  malcontents ; 
they  must  surrender  their  fortalices.  There  were  several  Kers, 
Lindsay  of  Halton  (where  James  had  been  in  peril),  Bothwell, 
Crawford,  Montrose,  Fintry  (an  active  Catholic  dealer  with  France), 
Errol,  Gardyne  of  Gardyne,  many  Gordons,  including  Gordon  of 
Gight,  and  a  score  of  Lindsays.^*  The  confederates,  therefore, 
were  of  the  lawless  Border,  and  of  Perthshire,  Aberdeenshire,  and 
the  county  of  Angus. 

The  Earl  of  Angus  ^^  and  Lord  Hamilton  commanded  the  royal 
forces  under  James.  The  confederates  captured  the  Master  of 
Glamis  in  his  house  :  James  moved  out  from  Linlithgow  with  his 
levies  on  April  11.  The  rebels  were  assembled  at  Perth,  whence 
they  retreated  by  Dundee  and  Brechin.  Now  James  showed  a 
spark  of  his  mother's  spirit  when  she  drove  Murray  from  hold  to 
hold  into  England.  Many  men  deserted  the  royal  banner,  but  he 
pushed  on,  and  with  a  force  reckoned  only  at  1000  met  Huntly  with 


346  COURAGE   OF  JAMES. 

3000  at  Brig  o'  Dee.  Errol  would  have  fought,  but  Huntly's  men 
dispersed  :  they  had  been  told  that  Huntly  possessed  a  royal  com- 
mission, but,  seeing  James  in  arms  against  him,  their  hearts  failed 
them.  Defeat  meant  forfeiture.  James  reached  Aberdeen  on  April 
20.  "Bands"  were  taken  from  many  of  the  northern  chiefs  and 
barons  for  the  defence  of  the  king  and  the  religion.  Forbeses, 
Rosses,  Grants,  Gordons,  Mackintoshes,  Hays,  Dunbars,  and 
Mackenzies  were  obliged  to  sign  with  Cheynes  and  Keiths.  Huntly 
and  Crawford  were  taken  and  warded  in  courteous  durance  :  Both- 
well  was  handed  to  the  captain  of  the  Guard.^*" 

It  is  probable  that  the  tradition  about  James's  personal  timidity  is 
greatly  exaggerated.  He  is  said  to  have  been  unable  to  look  on  a 
drawn  sword.  In  this  rebellion  he  led  his  men  where  he  was  likely 
to  see  plenty  of  cold  steel.  Spottiswoode  declares  that  on  the  eve 
of  expected  battle  he  addressed  his  little  force  with  grace — "  I  desire 
you  to  stand  no  longer  than  ye  see  me  stand " :  Colville  gives  a 
similar  report  to  Ashby,  as  does  Fowler  (April  18,  April  23),  and  it 
is  clear  that  James  had  shaken  off  his  irresolute  melancholy  and 
played  his  part  very  well. 

The  worst  of  these  successes  was  that  they  could  be  turned  to  no 
real  advantage.  Despite  the  feuds  and  jealousies  of  the  nobles,  they 
were  all  at  one  on  a  single  point,  their  own  right  to  commit  high 
treason  with  practical  impunity.  The  victors  knew  that  in  a  month, 
by  a  turn  of  the  wheel,  they  might  be  the  vanquished.  They  all 
keenly  objected  to  forfeitures  and  capital  punishments.  James  V. 
had  done  his  best  against  the  Douglases,  to  what  end  ?  Merely  to 
give  England  the  most  powerful,  dangerous,  and  perfidious  of  allies. 
By  betraying  Scotland  to  the  disaster  of  Solway  Moss,  Sir  George 
Douglas  practically  slew  James  V.  The  house  flourished  again 
under  Morton,  that  scourge  of  the  Crown.  Morton  was  overthrown, 
but  his  blood-feud  raised  up  the  Presbyterian  Angus  to  capture  and 
dominate  James,  and  to  procure  the  fall  of  Arran.  Murray  and 
Mary  had  once  before  overthrown  and  ruined  the  House  of  Huntly  : 
in  three  or  four  years  the  Gordons  were  as  powerful  as  ever,  and  the 
Huntly  of  the  Brig  o'  Dee  remained  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  State 
long  after  his  head  and  shoulders  would  have  parted  company  had 
he  been  a  subject  of  Elizabeth.  But  no  sooner  was  he  captured 
than  James's  war  leader,  Lord  Hamilton,  Huntly's  kinsman,  was 
found  to  be  opposed  to  his  execution.^"  Besides,  James  was  per- 
sonally attached   to   Huntly,   and   yet   again,   in  a   country  where 


THE   KING'S   MARRIAGE.  347 

the  pretensions  of  the  preachers  were  really  the  most  threatening 
danger  to  the  Crown,  Huntly,  a  Catholic,  could  be  relied  on 
against  the  preachers.  The  maintenance  by  James  of  a  perilous 
equilibrium  between  Protestant  theocrats  and  greedy  Catholic 
nobles,  and  the  feudal  and  personal  jealousies  of  the  lords  in- 
different in  religion,  at  home ;  and  between  Elizabeth  and  the 
Catholic  Powers  abroad,  make  up  all  this  chapter  of  our  history. 
Original  kinds  of  events  are  few,  but  occurrences  follow  each 
other  rapidly  on  to  the  boards,  round  behind  the  scenes,  and 
on  again,  like  a  stage  army.  Huntly  and  the  other  rebels  were 
to  have  their  exits  and  their  entrances  for  many  a  year  after 
15S9. 

The  criminals  were  examined  on  May  24.^^  Huntly's  examina- 
tion was  a  little  garden-party :  the  prisoner,  James,  and  four  or  five 
of  the  Council  met  in  the  pleasance  behind  the  council  house.  He 
"  came  in  the  king's  will  "  :  was  warded  in  Borthwick  Castle;  Bothwell, 
under  Angus,  at  Tantallon ;  Crawford  at  St  Andrews.  They  were 
all  soon  at  liberty  again. ^'^  "  The  ministers  cry  for  justice,"  Fowler 
reports ;  but  if  every  head  that  the  ministers  asked  for  had  fallen, 
Scotland  would  have  been  a  shambles.  By  May  27  the  Master  of 
Gray  was  at  Berwick  on  his  homeward  course  :  "  so  it  Avas  seen  that 
his  banishment  was  only  for  the  fashion,"  says  Calderwood.  He 
appears  to  have  been  restored  by  means  of  Maitland,  the  Chancellor, 
and  is  at  once  (June  4)  found  sending  intelligence  to  Cecil,  for 
whom,  and  for  Rome,  he  continued  to  play  the  double  spy.  The 
rebels,  it  seems,  had  practically  been  induced  to  surrender  by  prom- 
ises of  lenient  usage,  guaranteed  by  Hamilton,  Angus,  Mar, 
Morton,  Home,  the  Earl  Marischal,  and  the  Master  of  Glamis.*** 
Gray  had  reconciled  himself  in  England  with  Cecil,  and  one  part  of 
his  business  was  to  aid  Fowler  in  preventing  James  from  wedding 
the  daughter  of  Denmark,  the  Princess  Anne. 

It  was  the  nature  of  Elizabeth  to  interfere  against  all  marriages  : 
her  pretext  now  was  her  desire  that  James  should  marry  the  Prin- 
cess of  Navarre.  But  he  had  heard  that  she  was  old  and  crooked, 
and  much  preferred  a  young  lady  of  fifteen,  recommended  by  his 
old  tutor,  Peter  Young,  lately  his  ambassador  to  Denmark.  Eliz- 
abeth had  sent  to  James  some  money  during  his  recent  troubles, 
and  he  humorously  employed  it  to  fit  out,  in  opposition  to  the 
wishes  of  the  English  queen,  the  Earl  Marischal,  a  man  of  taste 
and  learning,  on  his  mission  to  ask  for  "  the  sea-king's  daughter 


348  THE   KING   SEEKS   HIS   BRIDE. 

from  over  the  sea."  The  lady  had  been  bred  a  Lutheran,  and 
no  one  could  guess  that  she  would  return  to  the  old  faith,  as 
she  did.*^  Gray's  own  credit  at  Court  was  now  slight :  he  sighed 
for  his  old  abbacy  (lay)  of  Dunfermline,  to  which,  whichever  creed 
he  professed,  he  was  devoutly  attached. 

The  Earl  Marischal  did  sail  for  Denmark  (June  i8),  and  the  proxy 
marriage  with  Anne  was  celebrated  on  August  20.  Meanwhile,  as 
the  star  of  Gray  rose  again,  that  of  Archibald  Douglas  set.  He 
laments  "a  disposition  to  pick  quarrels  with  him,"  and,  apart  from 
his  own  unamiable  qualities,  he  probably  had  taken  part  with  Eng- 
land against  the  Danish  marriage.  James  neglected  him  ;  he  begged 
from  Elizabeth.  Maitland  also  opposed  the  Danish  wedding,  but 
James  was  determined  to  marry  to  please  himself.  He  therefore 
showed  more  and  more  favour  to  possible  supporters,  the  recent 
rebels.  Errol  made  his  submission  in  August :  on  August  1 2  the 
rest  were  set  at  liberty.  This  amnesty  was  in  honour  of  the  Royal 
bride ;  but  the  September  storms  drove  her  little  fleet  hither  and 
thither  :  her  own  vessel  was  missing  for  three  days  in  the  Northern 
Sea:  she  had  to  return  home,  and  on  October  22  James  placed  his 
Toyal  person  at  adventure  and  boldly  sailed  to  join  his  bride  in  Den- 
mark. He  took  Maitland  with  him  ;  for  many  reasons  it  was  not 
safe  to  leave  Maitland  at  home.  During  the  king's  long  absence  the 
country  was  quietly  governed  by  nobles — Hamilton,  Angus,  Lennox, 
and  Bothwell — while  Robert  Bruce  represented  the  preachers.  All,  • 
being  trusted,  were  wonderfully  on  their  good  behaviour,  whereas 
had  Maitland  stayed  at  home  his  throat  would  certainly  have  been 
cut.  There  were,  indeed,  germs  of  feuds  in  the  North,  later  to 
blossom  into  clan  warfare, — the  hatred  between  Huntly  and  "  the 
bonny  Earl  Moray," — and  Bothwell's  relations  with  Elizabeth  suggest 
that  she  regarded  him  as  a  card  which  might  be  serviceable  some  day 
in  her  hand.  But  James's  absence  from  October  to  April  caused  no 
disturbances,  perhaps  rather  prevented  them. 

For  some  reason  the  king  in  this  year  showed  amazing  energy  in 
the  fields  of  Mars  and  Venus.  Fontaine  had  found  him  a  laggard 
in  love,  and  in  all  courtly  graces  a  grobian.  He  despised  dandies, 
and  especially  detested  ear-rings,  which  his  unhappy  son  wore  even 
on  the  scaffold  at  Whitehall.  The  youth  of  James  had  been  con- 
tinent ;  alone  of  the  Stewarts  he  left,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  goes, 
no  scions  of  amorous  adventure.  Modern  historians  accuse  him  of 
•"  precocity  in  vice."     Where  are  the  proofs  } — even  calumny,  up  to 


THE   KING'S   RETURN    (1590).  349 

this  date,  puts  in  but  one  filthy  word  in  a  scandalous  lampoon.  We 
hear  of  no  young  ladies  about  his  Court,  and  his  coldness  caused 
anxiety  among  his  subjects.  Grotesque  always,  James  on  leaving 
Scotland  set  forth  such  an  address  to  the  country  as  only  he  could 
frame.*^  He  would  have  men  to  know  that  he  was  not  "a  barren 
stock."  He  had  formed  at  Craigmillar,  all  alone,  his  resolution  to 
set  sail,  and  had  put  aside  the  objections  of  the  Chancellor,  and 
indeed  he  had  kept  his  own  counsel  as  to  voyaging  personally  till 
all  preparations  were  made.  He  firmly  objected  to  being  written 
down  "an  irresolute  ass."  He  describes  his  amusements  in  Den- 
mark as  "  drinking  and  driving  ower,"  but  he  also  conversed  with 
the  learned.  It  is  not  known  that  he  obtained  any  evidence  as 
to  the  disputed  testament  of  Bothwell,  declaring  the  innocence  of 
Queen  Mary,  He  returned  and  was  received  at  Leith  on  May  20, 
1590,  with  all  the  tedious  forms  of  pageantry  usual  at  the  period. 

The  preachers,  true  to  themselves,  objected  to  the  anointment  of 
the  queen  at  her  coronation  as  a  Jewish  ceremon)',  or  if  not  Jewish, 
then  popish.  James  threatened  to  call  in  a  bishop.  Anything  was 
better  than  a  bishop,  so  Mr  Robert  Bruce  did  the  anointing. ^^ 

The  Kirk  at  this  time  was  in  a  highly  sensitive  condition.  Dr 
Bancroft  in  England  had  preached  against  the  Puritans  (February  9, 
1588),  and  his  tone  had  been  unworthy  of  a  Christian  and  a  gentle- 
man. He  rather  appeared  to  imitate  on  the  Episcopal  side  the  style 
of  Knox's  denunciations  of  "  bloudie  bischops,"  and  Knox  is  a  bad 
model.  What  Bancroft  said  of  the  Scottish  preachers  (as  summarised 
by  Dr  M'Crie)  was  that  they  "  took  it  upon  them  to  alter  the  laws  of 
the  land  without  the  consent  of  the  king  and  Estates,  threatened  them 
with  excommunication,  filled  the  pulpits  with  seditious  and  treason- 
able doctrine,  utterly  disclaimed  the  king's  authority,  trod  upon  his 
sceptre,  laboured  to  establish  an  ecclesiastical  tyranny  of  an  infinite 
jurisdiction,  such  as  neither  the  law  of  God  nor  man  could  tolerate," 
and  so  forth.  Bancroft  would  appear  to  have  been  "  intoxicated  by 
the  exuberance  of  his  own  verbosity,"  but  it  is  not  difficult  to  under- 
stand his  drift ;  and  if  the  preachers  did  not  aim  at  "  infinite 
jurisdiction,"  what  did  they  aim  at? 

In  reply  Davidson,  the  poet  and  preacher,  wrote  a  letter  to 
Elizabeth,  but  it  was  not  despatched.  Complaint  was  made  of  a 
tract  of  Archbishop  Adamson's  in  which  he  gave  his  views  about 
Presbyterian  eloquence.  The  General  Assembly  ordered  prayers 
for  "  the  afflicted  brethren  in  England,"  the  Puritans.     Mr  James 


350  ELIZABETH   ON    PURITANS. 

Melville,  in  place  of  being  warned  by  the  bad  example  of  Bancroft, 
denounced  before  the  General  Assembly  "  these  Amaziahs,  the 
belly-god  bishops  in  England,  by  all  means  and  money  seeking 
conformity  of  our  Kirk  with  theirs,  as  did  Achaz  and  Uriah  with 
the  altar  at  Damascus."  **  These  excesses,  as  regards  a  "  neighbour 
Kirk,"  we  must  regret  and  condemn.  Melville  implored  the 
Brethren  to  ratify  the  old  Fife  excommunication  against  Archbishop 
Adamson.  It  would  do  Adamson  so  much  good,  he  said,  "  if  he  be 
of  the  number  of  the  elect,"  which,  as  a  "  vennemous  enemie  of 
Christ's  kingdome,"  Adamson  probably  was  not.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  was  of  the  elect,  it  does  not  seem  that  excommunication 
could  harm  a  person  in  that  desirable  position.  Mr  Melville's 
advice  was  "  approved  by  all,"  and  yet  there  seems  to  be  a  want  of 
sweet  reasonableness  in  his  method.  One  thing  was  clear,  the  long 
war  of  Scottish  Presbyterians  and  English  Puritans  against  the 
"belly-god  bishops"  had  begun,  and  the  English  Puritans  and 
Scottish  Presbyterians  were  in  alliance.  Bancroft  preluded  to 
Laud,  Melville  to  Cargill  and  Cameron,  Blair  and  Rutherford. 
The  Reformation  brought  not  peace  but  a  sword  that  was  to  rage 
through  the  next  century.  These  beginnings  of  trouble,  these 
violences  of  parson  and  presbyter,  these  furies  of  the  rival  pulpit- 
eers, are  more  important  than  the  feuds  and  follies  of  the  noblesse. 
In  the  excitement  about  forms  of  religious  discipline  nobody  seems 
to  have  bethought  him  that  the  religion  was  that  of  Christ,  or  to 
have  remembered  the  spirit  of  the  Master. 

The  Scottish  preachers  continued  to  pray  for  their  afflicted 
brethren,  the  imprisoned  Puritans  in  England.  They  had  been 
unwilling  to  seem  to  hint  a  censure  of  Elizabeth  when  the  axe  was 
sharpened  for  Queen  Mary,  but  when  the  Puritan  brethren  were 
touched  they  knew  no  such  reluctance.  Elizabeth  on  July  6  wrote 
James  a  stringent  letter  on  the  subject.  "  There  has  arisen,  both  in 
your  realm  and  mine,  a  sect  of  perilous  consequence,  such  as  would 
have  no  kings  but  a  presbytery  ;  and  take  our  place,  while  they 
enjoy  our  privilege,  with  a  shade  of  God's  Word,  which  none  is 
judged  to  follow  right,  without  by  their  censure  they  be  so  deemed." 
This  means  that  the  preachers  desired  the  State  to  be  ruled  by 
God's  Word,  of  which  they  were  the  infallible  interpreters. 

Here  really  was  the  storm-centre  of  the  situation.  The  preachers 
might  be,  and  indeed  were,  much  better  men  morally  than  the 
statesmen,   and  were   free  from  personal    self-seeking.      But   their 


WITCHCRAFT.  35 1 

claim  to  infallibility  (a  claim  implied,  if  not  explicitly  uttered),  their 
appeal  to  inspiration,  in  "  the  preaching  place,"  meant  nothing  less 
than  that  the  State  was  to  be  governed  by  the  pulpit.  No  preten- 
sions could  be  more  dangerous  ;  and  kings  were  really  engaged  for 
a  century  in  a  contest  for  human  freedom,  freedom  from  the  political 
interference  of  inspired  and  irresponsible  pulpit  orators.  The  royal 
methods  alienate  our  sympathies ;  their  actual  aim  is  lost  sight  of  in 
our  disgust  with  their  measures — imprisonment,  exile,  dragoonings, 
and  the  imposition  of  Episcopacy  upon  a  nation  which  detested 
"  the  horns  of  the  mitre."  But  in  these  rude  and  unseemly  ways 
the  warfare  was  waged  till,  after  the  Revolution  of  1688,  the  power 
of  "new  presbyter"  was  broken,  as  the  power  of  "old  priest"  had 
already  been  overthrown. 

James,  as  a  victor  in  the  bloodless  war  of  Brig  o'  Dee,  and  as  a 
married  man,  began  to  take  himself  seriously.  He  had  a  project 
for  establishing  peace  and  unity  among  Protestant  Powers  :  he  even 
sent  two  ambassadors  through  Germany.  He  would  expel  Jesuits, 
reconcile  feuds,  and  make  the  royal  presence  more  sacred  and  less 
easy  of  access.  By  the  last  idea  he  managed  to  offend  Lord 
Hamilton  :  the  other  schemes  of  reform  remained  unfulfilled,  like 
all  the  Acts  of  similar  tendency  which  crowd  our  records.  The 
confederates  of  the  Brig  o'  Dee  continued  to  intrigue  at  home  and 
abroad.  A  feud  broke  out  between  Huntly  and  "  the  bonny  Earl 
Moray,"  which  had  fatal  consequences.  The  Earl  did  not  inherit 
by  direct  descent  the  old  Moray-Huntly  blood-feud  of  1562.  He 
was  a  Stewart  who  had  married  the  daughter  of  the  Regent  Murray, 
and  his  neighbourhood  to  Huntly  would  have  provoked  a  quarrel 
in  any  case,  a  quarrel  involving  Gordons,  Campbells,  Forbeses, 
Stewarts,  and  the  adjacent  Celtic-speaking  clans.  The  causes  and 
complexities  of  the  feud  must  be  explained  later. 

James  also  busied  himself  much  in  examining  and  persecuting 
witches  and  warlocks  who  had  raised  inconvenient  storms,  or  in- 
trigued to  ascertain  his  future,  or  to  slay  by  art  magic  himself  (as 
Bothwell  was  accused  of  trying  to  do)  and  his  Ministers.  The 
usual  plan  was  that  of  "  sympathetic  magic " ;  an  image  of  the 
victim,  in  clay  or  wax,  was  melted  in  water  or  fire.  The  idea  is 
familiar  to  most  savnges,  and  was  current  in  ancient  Greece.  It  is 
possible  enough  that  when  the  victims  knew  that  the  rite  was 
being  performed  they  fell  ill  by  dint  of  "  suggestion  "  or  "  imagina- 
tion."     Montaigne    at  this  time   was   giving  proofs  of    the  power 


352  WITCHCRAFT. 

of  "  suggestion  "  upon  the  fancy,  and  so  upon  the  body.  Reginald 
Scot  had  recently  published  his  large  and  entertaining  work  on 
the  folly  of  current  beliefs,  'The  Discovery  of  Witchcraft.'  In 
Scotland  not  much  is  heard  of  punishment  for  witchcraft  before  the 
Reformation,  when  Knox,  the  preachers,  and  the  Regent  Murray 
conceived  it  to  be  their  duty  to  denounce  and  burn  witches.* 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  many  witches  were  in  intention 
malevolent  enough.  They  believed  in  their  own  powers,  and 
probably  dealt  in  poison  on  occasion,  very  clumsily,  as  in  Both- 
well's  attempt  on  the  king.  At  the  least,  their  pretensions  inspired 
terror  and  the  physical  maladies  which  terror  can  cause.  But 
James's  action,  his  earnest  pedantic  curiosity,  and  the  unspeak- 
able tortures  which  he  caused  to  be  inflicted,  strengthened  in 
this  unhappy  matter  the  hands  of  the  preachers,  and  reinforced  a 
superstition  which  Reginald  Scot  and  others  attempted  to  laugh 
away.  For  more  than  a  hundred  years  the  poorest  and  most 
pitiable  of  mankind,  destitute  old  women,  were  at  the  mercy  of 
every  prying  preacher,  every  hysterical  child,  every  unfriendly  neigh- 
bour. In  the  next  century  we  have  a  melancholy  narrative  by  a 
minister.  A  woman  was  accused,  the  parishioners  were  violently 
inflamed  against  her,  the  laird  was  anxious  to  save  her.  The 
examinations  by  the  minister  yielded  no  grounds  of  suspicion,  but 
not  to  condemn  her  was  to  offend  the  populace,  alternately  the 
tyrants  and  slaves  of  the  preachers.  Happily  the  minister,  after 
leaving  her  in  her  cell,  returned  and  listened  at  the  door.  His 
eavesdropping  was  rewarded.  He  heard  the  old  woman  mumbling 
to  herself,  and  he  could  nearly  swear  that  he  heard  another  voice 
replying.  That  voice  must  be  the  devil's.  So  the  woman  was 
burned,  and  the  minister  retained  his  popularity.  The  disturbances, 
noises,  knockings,  movements  of  objects,  which  are  still  common 
enough  in  newspaper  reports,  were  always  associated  with  a  hysteri- 
cal boy  or  girl  who  used  to  "  see  "  the  witch. 

Possibly  the  child  had  been  alarmed  by  the  witch,  and  herself 
caused  the  unexplained  disturbances.  But  the  so-called  "  spectral 
evidence  "  was  good  enough  :  the  witch  was  arrested  and  tortured. 
She  implicated  others  :  she  told  fables  of  the  Sabbat,  the  league 
with  Satan,  and  other  fragments  of  folk-lore,  tales  about  Fairyland, 
mortals   enchanted   there,    and   the   fairy   queen.       The   parish    fell 

*  This  is  insisted  on  in  the  record  of  the  Regent's  Parh'ament  of  December  1567 
(Act.  Pari,  Scot.,  iii.  44). 


\ 


BEGINNING   OF   BOTHWELL   TROUBLES   (1591)-  353 

under  a  reign  of  terror  :  even  matrons  of  noble  family  were  not 
safe.  The  cruel  absurdity  raged  in  England  as  in  Scotland,  under 
Episcopacy  as  under  Presbyterianism.  Much  of  the  fault  lies  at 
the  door  of  James,  who  could  not,  indeed,  have  controlled  the 
preachers,  but  who  went  out  of  his  way  to  encourage  beliefs  that 
ensanguine  the  courts  of  African  kings  and  the  camps  of  wandering 
Australian  tribes.*^  Bothwell  was  most  unfortunately  involved  in 
alleged  dealings  with  witches,  and  was  actually  imprisoned  in  April 
1 59 1,  though  some  thought  that  the  preachers  had  him  incarcer- 
ated for  a  flirtation  with  one  of  the  daughters  of  the  late  Earl  of 
Gowrie.  He  was  confronted  with  Graham  the  wizard,  who  con- 
fessed to  a  scheme  for  poisoning  the  king  in  a  magical  manner. 
A  fast  was  held  on  this  important  occasion.*^  Bothwell  broke 
prison  and  betook  himself  to  his  Border  fastness  (June  21).  He 
was  not  taken  :  he  now  was,  and  remained,  a  wandering  torment  and 
a  probable  source  of  revolution.*^  He  had  carried  off  a  witness 
from  the  Tolbooth  in  January  while  the  king  was  in  session  there, 
and  only  a  few  days  before  his  majesty  is  said  to  have  fled  and 
hidden  in  a  skinner's  shop  during  a  street  brawl  between  Lennox 
and  the  "  wanton  laird  of  Logie." 

While  he  was  accused  of  favouring  Jesuits,  and  of  suppressing  a 
book  written  by  John  Davidson  against  Bancroft's  celebrated  sermon, 
he  was  also  assuring  the  General  Assembly  that  the  Kirk  was  the 
purest  of  Kirks.  "  The  Kirk  of  Geneva  keepeth  Pasche  and  Yule  " 
(Easter  and  Christmas),  "  what  have  they  for  them  ?  They  have 
no  institution.  As  for  our  neighbour  Kirk  in  England,  it  is  an  evil- 
said  mass  in  English,  wanting  nothing  but  the  liftings  "  (Elevation  of 
the  Host).*^  From  this  opinion  James  was  to  advance  very  far. 
The  Assembly  was  greatly  delighted  by  James's  adherence  to  the 
Kirk. 

In  April  1591  shame  fell  upon  the  unhappy  Archbishop  of  St 
Andrews.  The  preachers  gave  James  no  rest  about  the  most  hated 
of  their  enemies.  We  mainly  know  Adamson  from  his  mortal  foes, 
who  added  witchcraft  to  the  charges  which  they  heaped  upon  him. 
Though  a  scholar,  he  appears  to  have  been  a  time-server.  We  have 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  was  the  martyr  of  an  earnest  behef  in 
the  order  of  bishops,  or  apostolic  succession,  but  rather  the  kind  of 
man  out  of  whom  tulchans  were  made.  He  had  served  his  king 
rather  than  his  Kirk,  and  his  king  found  it  at  this  time  convenient 
to  desert  him.     Maitland  was  hostile  to  him,  and  that  proved  fatal. 

VOL.    II.  z 


354  PREACHERS   CLAIM   JURISDICTION. 

He  was  reduced  to  lying  in  the  Castle  of  St  Andrews  "like  a  fox 
in  a  hole,"  and  is  accused  of  inducing  Henry  Hamilton,  M.A.,  to 
attack  Professor  Welwood  on  his  way  to  a  lecture  in  St  Mary's.  The 
rector  deprived  Hamilton  of  his  master's  degree,  the  judges  "gave 
out  compulsitors  to  "  the  rector's  decision ;  Hamilton  was  presented 
with  the  freedom  of  the  city.  Professor  Welwood  was  going  to 
lecture,  a  book  in  one  hand  and  an  hour-glass  in  the  other,  when 
Hamilton  attacked  him  with  his  sword.  Town  and  Gown  flew 
to  arms,  Adamson's  brother-in-law  was  slain  in  a  duel  at  rapier 
and  dagger  :  in  the  end  the  town  secured  the  exile  of  two  of 
the  Welwood  faction.  All  this  went  down  to  the  discredit  of 
the  Archbishop. ^^  In  1591  he  offered  a  general  recantation  of 
his  offences.  He  had  subjected  the  Kirk  men  to  the  king's 
ordinances,  and  {proh  pudor  I)  had  taught  that  presbyteries  were 
"  a  foolish  invention,"  though  really  they  are  "  an  ordinance  of 
Christ."  He  had  intrigued  with  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England. 
Divers  other  offences  he  had  committed,  he  was  dying  in  poverty, 
and,  crowning  humiliation,  he  owed  his  daily  bread  to  his  old 
enemy,  Andrew  Melville. 

The  central  question  between  James  and  the  preachers  was  that 
of  jurisdiction.  James  told  them  that  he  thought  he  "  had  sovereign 
judgment  on  all  things  within  this  realm."  The  reply,  by  INIr 
Robert  Pont,  was  typical.  "  There  is  a  judgment  above  yours, 
and  that  is  God's,  put  in  the  hand  of  the  nmiisters ;  for  we  shall 
judge  the  angels,  saith  the  apostle."  The  king  replied  that  the 
judgment  in  the  text  "pertained  to  every  shoemaker  and  tailor, 
as  well  as  to  the  Kirk."  Mr  Pont  answered,  "  Christ  sayeth, 
'  Ye  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones  and  judge,'  which  is  chiefly 
referred  to  the  apostles  "  (indeed,  given  only  twelve  thrones,  there 
were  no  seats  for  more),  "  and  consequently  to  ministers."  There 
is  the  claim,  frankly  stated,  and  supported  by  what  reasoning ! 
"A  sect  of  perilous  consequence,  such  as  would  have  no  kings 
but  a  presbytery " !  The  preachers,  how  selected  we  have  seen, 
pretend,  in  fact,  to  apostolical  succession  without  using  that  phrase, 
and  claim  for  themselves  on  earth  the  privileges  of  the  apostles 
in  heaven. 

Thus  there  was  civil  and  ecclesiastical  anarchy.  The  preachers 
besought  James  to  reinforce  law  and  order,  but  James  was  helpless. 
As  he  said,  jurisdictions  were  often  inherited,  and  the  officers 
regarded  only  their  private  and  family  interests.      He   could   not 


BOTHWELL  ATTACKS   HOLYROOD.  355 

take  Bothwell,  though  Bothwell  aimed  at  his  life.  Bothwell  was 
here  and  there,  always  in  mischief.  On  December  27,  1591,  he 
and  his  retainers  broke  into  Holyrood,  he  tried  to  burn  down  the 
door  of  the  king's  chamber,  and  beat  with  hammers  on  the  queen's. 
He  had  entered  through  Lennox's  stables,  and  Lennox  was  not  free 
from  suspicion.  The  town  turned  out,  rescued  James,  and  captured 
a  few  assailants  of  no  note,  who  were  hanged.  The  names  of  the 
ruffians  prove  them  of  the  Border :  Hepburns,  Douglases,  Humes, 
Ormistons,  Leirmonths  (mainly  of  Ercildoune,  the  Rhymer's 
family),  Pringles,  and,  what  looks  ill  for  Lennox,  Stewarts.  John 
Colville,  with  Douglas  of  Spot,  of  Morton's  brood,  also  thought  it 
for  his  interest  to  take  part  with  Bothwell. ^°  Craig,  the  preacher, 
publicly  informed  James  that,  to  punish  his  laxity,  "God  had  made 
a  noise  of  crying  and  forehammers  come  to  his  own  doors."  ^^ 
Presently  the  character  of  the  king  himself  was  blemished  by  a 
deed  which  for  years  influenced  the  politics  of  Scotland.  This  was 
the  murder,  by  Huntly  and  his  retainers,  of  the  bonny  Earl  Moray, 
commemorated  in  the  familiar  ballad.  Before  describing  the  cir- 
cumstances and  consequences  of  this  deed,  it  is  necessary  to  explore 
its  causes,  which  were  remote  and  complicated. 

Colin,  sixth  Earl  of  Argyll,  died  in  September  1584.  His  heir 
and  eldest  son,  Archibald,  was  then  a  child  of  eight  years  of  age. 
His  mother  was  left  with  a  council  of  six  Campbells,  including 
Campbell  of  Glenurchy,  Campbell  of  Calder,  Campbell  of  Ard- 
kinglas  (an  estate  on  the  southern  side  of  Lochfyne,  opposite 
Inverary),  and  Campbell  of  Lochnell.  Of  these  Lochnell  was,  as 
the  Lochnell  of  to-day  still  is,  the  first  cadet  of  the  House  of 
Argyll,  while  the  heir -presumptive  is,  maternally,  of  the  House 
of  Ardkinglas.  In  1584  Ardkinglas  received  the  wardship  and 
marriage  of  the  child  earl,  and  he,  with  Calder  and  the  Bishop  of 
Argyll,  had  most  power  in  the  clan  council  of  six.  Lochnell,  as 
first  cadet  and  next  in  succession,  failing  the  issue  of  the  sixth 
Earl  of  Argyll,  was  jealous  of  Ardkinglas,  and  was  backed  by 
Glenurchy.  Ardkinglas  died  (1591),  and  his  son  was  practically 
subordinated  to  Calder.  A  partisan  of  Calder's  was  the  bonny 
Earl  Moray,  a  Stewart  by  family,  who  had  married  the  daughter 
and  heiress  of  the  Regent  Murray,  the  foe,  and  for  a  while  the 
destroyer  (1562),  of  the  House  of  Huntly.  In  the  feuds  about  the 
earldom  of  Moray,  once  held  by  the  Huntlys,  the  Argylls  had 
supported  the  House  of  Moray.      In    1590    Huntly  had   reasons 


356  "THE   GREAT   BAND." 

for  wishing  to  deprive  the  bonny  Earl  of  the  support  of  Calder. 
Huntly  allied  himself  with  Lochiel,  Moray  with  Atholl,  Calder, 
and  Lovat.  Huntly  also  made  approaches  to  Calder's  intertribal 
foes,  Lochnell  and  Glenurchy.  They  all  formed  a  "  band  "  for  the 
destruction  of  the  young  Argyll,  his  brother,  Calder,  and  the  bonny 
Earl  Moray.  Parties  to  this  "band"  were  Maclean  of  Duart, 
whose  ancestor,  as  we  saw  in  a  previous  volume,  had  been  slain 
by  Calder's  grandfather  ;  Stewart  of  Appin  ;  Macdougal  of  DunoUy, 
near  Oban, — and  Maitland,  the  Chancellor!  While  the  Earl  of 
Moray,  Calder,  and  Argyll,  and  his  brother,  were  to  be  done  to 
death,  Lochnell  (who  would  succeed  to  the  earldom  of  Argyll) 
was  to  reward  Maitland  with  lands  in  Stirlingshire,  and  Glenurchy 
with  those  of  Lochowe,  the  ancient  patrimony  of  the  Campbells. 
Ardkinglas,  it  seems,  knew  nothing  of  "  the  great  band " ;  but 
he  hated  Calder,  and  was  induced  to  have  him  shot  by  a  man 
named  Mackellar.  So  far  so  good ;  one  victim  of  "  the  great 
band,"  one  enemy  of  Huntly,  had  perished.^^  He  next  aimed  at 
the  bonny  Earl  of  Moray,  who  was  now  within  striking  distance  of 
Edinburgh — very  probably  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  Bothwell 
in  his  enterprises  against  James  (December  27,  1591).  That 
he  was  suspected  of  a  part  in  this  treasonable  conspiracy  is 
certain. 

On  December  31,  1591,  Hudson  wrote  to  Cecil  that  there  were 
fears  of  James's  being  surprised  by  the  Earl  of  Moray,^^  "  suspected 
to  be  a  favourer  of  Bothwell."  His  arrival  at  Donibristle,  on  the 
northern  side  of  the  Queensferry,  is  said  to  have  been  caused  by  a 
desire  to  be  reconciled  to  Huntly  by  the  good  services  of  Ochiltree ; 
and  these  services,  again,  may  have  been  part  of  a  plot  by  Maitland, 
a  member  of  the  great  band,  to  bring  Moray  within  reach.  James 
would  be  told  that  Moray  was  a  Bothwellian  :  to  Huntly  he  was  a 
feudal  foe, — Maitland  wanted  part  of  his  spoil.  The  story  about 
Maitland  and  Ochiltree  is  the  version  of  the  author  of  '  The  His- 
torie  of  King  James  the  Sext,'  a  work  of  1582-97,  probably  in 
part  by  John  Colville,  and  is  attested  by  Roger  Aston,  writing  at 
the  moment.  On  the  other  hand,  five  weeks  before  Moray's  slay- 
ing, as  we  saw,  Hudson  had  reported  suspicions  that  he  intended 
with  others  to  seize  the  person  of  James.  Bothwell's  attempt  was 
of  December  27,  the  suspicions  were  expressed  on  December  31, 
and  it  may  have  been  supposed  that  Moray,  had  Bothwell  suc- 
ceeded, would  have  carried  the  king  north  to  his  remote  earldom. 


MURDER    OF   THE   BONNY    EARL   (1592).  357 

The  story  of  the  murder  is  best  given  in  the  words  of  Aston, 
an  English  "  intelligencer,"  writing  to  Bowes  from  Edinburgh  on 
February   8  :  *    words  printed  below. 

It  is  usually  said  that  when  Moray's  house  was  fired,  his  long 
streaming  locks  caught  fire,  and  led  the  murderers  to  his  hiding- 
place.  Huntly,  it  is  averred,  gashed  his  brow  with  a  dagger.  "  You 
have  spoiled  a  better  face  than  your  own,"  said  the  dying  Earl,  whose 
beauty,  the  ballad  avers,  had  won  the  favour  of  the  queen.  Accord- 
ing to  Calderwood,  Ochiltree  swore  that  he  had  brought  Moray  to 
Donibristle,  with  the  knowledge  only  of  James,  Huntly,  and  Mait- 
land,  for  the  purpose  of  a  reconciliation.  But  Moray  cannot  have 
been  far  off  when,  weeks  earlier,  he  was  suspected  of  a  design  to 
capture  James ;  and  he  was  even  said  to  have  been  with  Bothwell 

*  This  long  tyme  past  the  yerle  of  Murre  has  sought  to  be  reconciled  with 
Huntle  and  for  that  caues  has  employd  sundry  of  his  frendes  to  travel  with  the 
King  wich  was  nere  all  apoyntt  be  my  L.  Occoltryes  means  whoo  both  delt  with 
the  King  and  the  yerle  Huntle,  and  for  that  caues  the  yerle  Murre  came  to  his 
howes  of  Donnebrissel  whithin  ij  myle  of  the  quenes  ferry  Where  the  Lord  Oc- 
coltry  was  to  have  mett  on  mondaye  the  vii  of  this  enstand  and  for  that  purpose 
came  to  the  ferry  and  wold  have  gone  over,  butt  commanment  was  come  thether 
as  they  sayd  frum  the  King,  thatt  no  botes  should  pas.  Where  uppon  the  sed 
lord  retorned  thinkeing  there  had  bene  sum  enterpryes  to  have  bene  done  be  the 
King  thatt  daye.  The  King  was  att  hunting  and  Huntle  gave  it  outt  he  was 
going  to  the  King  and  so  came  forthe  acompened  with  xl  horse  of  his  servanttes. 
Thatt  morning  Huntle  tould  the  King  he  had  a  porpose  of  Mr  Jhon  Colvel 
and  some  otheres  thatt  were  withe  the  yerle  Bodwel,  and  for  that  caues  he  was 
to  pas  over  the  water.  Yett  the  King  fering  the  unconvenyenes  tatt  mought 
ensew  be  reson  of  the  yerle  of  Murrey  being  on  the  other  syd,  discharged  him  to 
ryd,  wich  he  promest  to  obe,  butt  sorttly  after  the  King  was  gone  furthe,  he  past 
forwartt  to  the  sed  yerle  of  Murres  howes,  and  being  but  two  howses,  and  not 
abel  to  be  keptt,  they  thatt  were  wtliin  came  forthe  sondry  tymes,  and  descharged 
there  pestoles  and  slew  sume  of  Honttlees  men  as  Capten  Gordon  and  dyvers 
otheres.  There  uppon  they  toke  the  corne  stakes  and  led  to  the  howes  so  thatt 
the  extremety  of  the  fier  forced  theme  that  was  within  to  come  forth.  The  yerle 
him  self,  after  he  was  so  brent  as  he  was  not  abel  to  howld  a  wepon  in  one  of 
his  handes,  came  throw  them  al  with  his  sord  in  his  hand,  and  lyke  a  lyon  forsed 
them  al  to  geve  plase,  and  so  gott  thorow  them  all,  and  with  sped  of  fott  out  ren, 
but  sowch  was  his  fourteii,  after  he  had  esecaped  them,  lit  in  the  handes  of  some 
of  the  watchers,  whoo  sett  uppon  him,  and  thirst  him  to  the  water,  wher  he  was 
be  them  crewelly  slen.  The  Serreff  of  Morre  was  slene  and  one  othere  of  his 
servantes,  many  hurt  of  both  sides,  the  ould  lady,  his  sesters,  and  cheldren,  were 
al  sauet.  This  fackett  is  counted  very  odywos  be  al  men,  the  King  takes  it  very 
hevily.  What  ponesment  there  wil  be  for  it  I  know  nott.  Huntle  is  past  nor- 
wartt,  the  King  and  counsellors  are  at  this  hour  setting  uppon  the  matter,  the 
pepel  cryes  outt  of  the  crewelty  of  the  ded.  We  loke  for  nothing  but  mischef '' 
— State  Papers,  Scot.,  Eliz.,  vol.  xlviii.  No  12,  i. 


358  MAITLAND   DRIVEN   FROM   OFFICE. 

in  the  attack  of  December  27.     Perhaps  the  king  knew  nothing, 
perhaps  his  attitude  was  that  attributed  to  him  in  the  ballad — 

"Oh,  wae  worth  ye,  Huntley, 
And  wherefore  did  ye  sae? 
I  bade  you  bring  him  to  me, 
But  forbade  you  him  to  slay." 

Taking  all  the  evidence  together,  it  would  appear  that  the  bonny 
Earl  had  long  been  marked  down  for  death  by  the  Lochnell  party  in 
Clan  Diarmaid,  by  Huntly,  and  by  Maitland.  As  Huntly  is  said  to 
have  procured  a  commission  against  Moray,  signed  by  Maitland  and 
Sir  Robert  Melville,  that  was  probably  extracted  from  James  under 
his  terror  of  Moray  as  an  ally  of  Bothwell.  Of  "the  great  band" 
nothing  was  yet  known,  but  it  came  to  light  after  the  conspiracy 
had  been  nearly  fatal  to  Argyll,  and  serious  consequences  followed. 
On  the  day  after  Moray's  death  a  decree  of  Council  deprived  Huntly 
of  all  his  commissions  of  lieutenancy.^  James  summoned  an  army 
to  meet  at  Perth  on  March  10  and  pursue  the  Earl,  but  he 
offered  to  "underlie  trial,"  and  entered  himself  a  prisoner  at  Black- 
ness.^^ He  was  allowed  to  slip  away,  as  usual,  in  spite  of  the 
tumults  of  the  populace  and  the  indignation  of  the  preachers. 
They  wished,  as  successors  of  the  apostles,  to  excommunicate 
the  slayer  of  the  bonny  Earl ;  but  James  "  grudged  that  the  be- 
setters  of  the  abbey,"  Bothwell  and  the  others,  escaped  the 
censure  of  the  Kirk.  He  seems  to  have  forgotten  that  Bothwell 
was,  or  feigned  to  be,  a  Protestant  and  had  only  attacked  a  king.^* 
The  preachers  were  very  slow  to  censure  any  offender  against  their 
sovereign.  Whoever  was  guilty  as  to  Moray,  Maitland  was  the 
sufferer.  "The  queen  and  others  that  favoured  Bothwell"  caused 
him  to  be  removed  from  power,  and  he  retired  to  Lethington 
(March  30,    1592). 

Mar  and  the  new  Earl  of  Morton  (not  Maxwell,  but  William 
Douglas  of  Lochleven)  succeeded  to  office.  Bothwell  made  in- 
terest with  "  his  loving  brethren  the  ministers  and  elders  of  Edin- 
burgh." He  gave  "  their  godly  wisdoms "  a  curious  account  of 
his  own  recent  proceedings.  As  to  his  dealing  with  Spain  against 
our  Zion,  the  facts  were  these  :  In  the  Parliament  after  Mary's 
death  Maitland  induced  Bothwell  and  the  other  nobles  to  swear 
to  avenge  the  queen.  Spanish  agents  took  the  occasion  to  in- 
sinuate themselves  in  the  favour  of  Bothwell  and  the  other  patriots. 


BOTHWELL'S   APOLOGY.  359 

Maitland  took  the  same  course  till  he  saw  that  Huntly,  not  he, 
was  to  have  the  handhng  of  the  Spanish  gold  (which  Bruce  kept 
out  of  Huntly's  clutches),  and  so  Maitland  turned  good  Protest- 
ant and  friend  to  England.  This  is  all  very  probable,  considering 
the  morals  of  the  statesmen  concerned.  Next,  as  to  Bothwell's 
conspiring  against  James  with  witches,  the  evidence  is  that  of 
"poor  beggars."  Maitland  would  have  had  James  proceed  sum- 
marily against  Bothwell,  just  as  he  and  his  "  friends "  (that  is, 
Lethington)  would  long  ago  have  had  the  Regent  Murray  take 
off  Queen  Mary  (after  her  capture  at  Carberry  Hill  in  June 
1567).  Bothwell  thus  repeats  what  Randolph  frankly  told  Lething- 
ton, that  he  "  had  advised  to  take  presently  the  life  from  her,"  Mary 
having,  as  she  said,  evidence  that  would  hang  Lethington. 
Bothwell  then  accused  Maitland,  himself  a  partaker  in  Darnley's 
murder,  with  having  helped  Sir  James  Balfour,  who  supplied  the 
powder,  to  draw  out  the  indictment  against  Morton.  All  this 
was  true  enough.  Bothwell,  taking  the  old  line  of  the  noblesse, 
averred  that  Maitland  was  worse  than  Cochran,  hanged  at  the 
bridge  of  Lauder,  under  James  IIL  Maitland  is  "the  puddock- 
stool  [fungus]  of  a  night,"  Bothwell  is  "an  ancient  cedar."  The 
apology  breaks  off  here,  but  it  enables  us  to  understand  the 
feelings  of  the  nobles  generally  towards  a  counsellor  who,  though 
of  family  more  ancient  than  Bothwell's  own,  was  not  of  high 
rank.^''^ 

Maitland  must  have  seen  that,  with  a  past  like  his,  and  with 
the  nobles  against  him,  he  must  seek  the  support  of  the  Kirk, 
James,  too,  was  exceedingly  unpopular,  both  with  the  preachers 
and  the  populace,  for  the  matter  of  Moray's  death,  and  he  went 
in  daily  fear  of  Bothwell.  Adamson  he  had  already  thrown  to 
the  wolves  :  now  he  cast  to  them  the  whole  fabric  of  Episcopacy. 

The  Parliament  of  April-June  1592  was  intended  to  forfeit 
Bothwell.  But  it  secured,  as  James  Melville  says,  "  the  Ratifica- 
tion of  the  Liberty  of  the  Trew  Kirk,"  and  the  abrogation  of  the 
Black  Acts  of  1584.  Melville  attributes  James's  concessions  to  fear 
of  Bothwell,  of  popular  hatred  stimulated  by  ballads  on  the  bonny 
Earl  Moray,  and  of  "public  threatening  of  God's  judgments  there- 
upon from  pulpits."  ^^  "  The  charter  of  the  liberties  of  the  Church" 
was  passed  ;  and  the  Kirk  flourished  with  all  her  powers  of  jurisdic- 
tion, discipline,  inquisition,  and  excommunication.  If  these  powers 
were  exercised  in  their  full  sense,  and  as  the  extreme  Protestants  had 


360  THE   KIRK   SECURES   HER   CHARTER   (1592). 

always  desired  to  use  them,  persecution  must  ensue.  The  laws 
against  Catholics,  involving  imprisonment,  confiscation,  exile,  and, 
in  the  last  resort,  death,  would  be  enforced.  The  nobles  had 
hitherto  always  restrained  the  desire  of  the  extreme  party  to  ex- 
tirpate idolaters,  and  at  this  hour  some  thirteen  of  the  great  nobles 
were  Catholics,  while  other  men  of  their  rank  stood  by  their  order. 
Thus  what  the  preachers  were  likely  to  demand  was  what  the  king 
dared  not,  and  did  not  desire  to  grant. 

The  settlement  of  June  1592  is  regarded  by  Dr  M'Crie,  the 
learned  biographer  of  Andrew  Melville,  as  "  not  without  its  defects." 
Nearly  all  that  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline  had  demanded  was 
granted.  But  the  General  Assembly  was  not  permitted  to  choose 
the  time  and  place  of  its  own  meetings,  which  would  seem  to 
imply  that  it  could  not  hold  special  meetings  whenever  it  seemed 
opportune  to  exercise  political  pressure.  "  The  liberties  of  the 
people  were  fettered  by  the  contmuance  of  lay  patronage." 

The  ideal  of  the  Kirk  was  that  ministers  should  be  selected  "  by 
the  judgment  of  the  elders,  and  consent  of  the  congregation,"  in 
each  instance.  No  minister  was  to  be  "  intrused "  on  a  congre- 
gation without  "lawful  election,  and  the  consent  of  the  people." °^ 
Sometimes,  it  seems,  "the  votes  of  the  congregation  at  large" 
elected  the  minister,  or  they  chose  electors,  or  they  referred  the 
matter  to  the  presbytery.  Once  duly  elected,  by  popular  choice 
or  consent,  the  minister  appears  (at  least  according  to  many  opinions, 
of  which  some  are  cited)  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  supreme  judge, 
and  successor  to  the  privileges  of  the  apostles.  Nominally,  this 
applied  only  to  matters  spiritual,  but  these  in  practice  included 
politics.  These  must  be  conducted  according  to  "  the  Word  of 
God,"  and  the  preachers  were  the  inspired  interpreters  of  the  Word 
of  God.  On  this  point  we  must  keep  insisting.  Democratic  elec- 
tion, by  congregations,  supplied  a  theocratic  Government,  iniperium 
in  imperio ;  and  this  was  the  real  cause  of  the  coming  civil  wars 
and  persecutions.  James  and  his  son  chose  to  resist  the  encroach- 
ments on  the  power  of  the  State  by  "  intruding "  Episcopacy  on 
a  recalcitrant  people,  which  fought  and  suffered  for  "liberty  of 
conscience."  The  strife  only  ended  by  the  gradual  resigning  of 
claims  to  inspired  interference — a  resignation  caused  in  part  by 
the  drastic  measures  of  Claverhouse  and  Lauderdale,  in  part  by 
the  general  decadence  of  the  old  original  spirit  of  the  Calvinistic 
Reformation. 


"THE    LAIRD   OF   WANTON    LOGIE."  361 

The  Parliament  that  set  up  Presbyterianism  forfeited  Bothwell,* 
who  riposted  with  an  attempt  to  capture  James  at  Falkland  (June 
27).  A  warning  was  posted  on  the  palace  gate  :  the  wife  of  Halkett 
of  Pitfirrane  and  the  wife  of  the  Master  of  Gray  were  accused.  The 
Master  himself  (July  14)  calmly  informed  Cecil  that  not  only  he  and 
Bothwell  but  the  whole  body  of  the  nobility  "  were  united  for  the 
maintenance  of  God's  cause,  the  reformation  of  Church  matters,  the 
preservation  of  their  king's  honour,  and  such  settled  dealings  with 
England  that  their  country  may  not  be  made  the  footstool  of 
foreigners."  ^°  Both  the  Master  and  Bothwell  were  welcomed  in 
England,  and  Bruce,  the  preacher,  declared  to  James  that  the  claim 
of  the  Bothwell  raiders  was  to  secure  justice  for  the  death  of  Moray. 
He  requested  James  "  to  humble  himself  upon  his  knees."  The 
king  was  so  far  from  humbling  himself  upon  his  knees  that  "he 
stood  to  his  own  purgation,"  "  The  raiders,"  he  said,  "  pretended 
no  such  matter  as  to  seek  justice  for  the  last  murder."  A  young 
woman,  the  daughter  of  a  saddler  in  Aberdeen,  was  also  moved  to 
come  and  admonish  James.  She  handed  to  him  a  paper :  "  after 
he  had  read  a  little  of  it  he  fell  a  laughing  that  he  could  scarce 
stand  on  his  feet."  ^'^ 

While  James  was  fleeing  up  and  down  the  country  before  Both- 
well,  a  mobile  foe,  a  pretty  romantic  event  occurred.  The  young 
laird  of  Logie,  in  one  version,  had  brought  Bothwell  quietly  into 
Dalkeith  Castle,  where  James  lay.  Logie  was  arrested  and  handed 
over  to  the  Guard.  But  Logie  was  on  affectionate  terms  with 
Margaret  Vinstar,  a  maid  of  honour  of  the  queen.  She  therefore 
went  to  the  captain  of  the  Guard  when  James  was  asleep,  and  said 
that  the  king  wished  to  see  Logie.  The  soldiers  brought  him  to 
James's  chamber  door,  he  entered  with  his  lady-love,  the  guardsmen 
remained  outside,  and  Margaret  let  Logie  out  of  the  King's  window. 
The  fancy  of  the  novelist  could  not  invent  a  neater  escape.  The 
queen  stood  up  for  the  maid  of  honour,  James  probably  laughed — 
at  all  events  he  pardoned  Logie,  who  married  his  Margaret. *^^ 

While  anarchy  prevailed,  while  AthoU  and  Mackintosh  ravaged 
Huntly's  lands,  while  the  Master  of  Gray  came  back  into  James's 

*  In  the  list  of  his  supporters  are  the  names  of  all  the  other  Bothwell's 
"Lambs."  We  find  Ormistons,  Hepbiirns,  Douglases  (illegitimate  scions  of  the 
Regent  Morton 'and  others),  Pringles,  Leirmonths,  and  Ninian  Chirnside.  the 
dealer  with  the  wizard,  later  noted  as  a  friend  of  Logan  of  Reslairig  (Act.  Pari. 
Scot.,  iii.  528). 


362  DANGER   OF   THE   KING. 

favour,  while  the  guerilla,  Bothwell,  subsidised  by  Spain,  was  har- 
boured in  Edinburgh,  and  flashed  like  a  meteor  through  Scotland, 
Mr  Walter  Row,  a  famous  preacher,  showed  the  real  mark  at  which 
he  and  his  brethren  shot.  "Upon  the  Lord's  day,  the  19th 
November,  Mr  Walter  Row,  in  his  sermon,  said  that  the  king 
might  be  excommunicated,  in  case  of  contumacy,  and  disobedience 
to  the  will  of  God."^^  Now  the  preachers  were  the  expositors  of 
the  "will  of  God,"  and  it  follows  that  whenever  they  disapproved 
of  the  king's  proceedings  they  could  practically  proclaim  him  an 
outlaw. 

Thus  threatened  and  put  at  on  every  side  (for  the  Catholic  nobles 
were  entering  into  intrigues  with  Spain),  James  took  the  desperate 
step  of  calling  Arran  to  Court.  Arran  he  was  no  longer — the  real 
bearer  of  the  title,  Queen  Mary's  old  wooer,  was  still  alive,  a  maniac. 
But  the  name  of  Arran  may  still  mark  the  intrepid  Stewart,  of  the 
Ochiltree  House,  who  dragged  down  Morton,  and  fell  after  the 
success  of  the  Raid  of  Stirling.  The  godly  remonstrated  with  James  ; 
James  replied  that  Bruce,  the  preacher,  had  harboured  Bothwell, 
a  prodigal  of  whom  the  Kirk  was  tender.  So  preacher  and  king 
were  brawling,  as  they  were  at  all  seasons.  Next  Sunday  the  Edin- 
burgh pulpits  were  thumped  to  the  tune  of  Arran's  misdeeds,  though 
two  of  the  ministers,  by  James's  desire,  also  inveighed  against  Both- 
well.  Arran  met  some  of  the  preachers,  but  he  could  not  move 
them,  and  he  "  came  not  to  Court  again."  James  was  aware  of 
a  danger  which  he  failed  to  parry.  He  bade  Lady  Gowrie,  widow 
of  the  leader  of  the  Raid  of  Ruthven,  leave  her  house  in  Holyrood 
(August  1592).  She  returned  to  that  nest  of  conspiracy,  and  suc- 
ceeded in  trapping  the  king.*^'* 

The  attempt  at  Arran's  restoration  proves  the  desperate  estate  of 
James.  The  reader  must  naturally  have  wondered  how  Elizabeth 
was  behaving  towards  a  kinsman  so  begirdled  by  perils,  and  so 
destitute  of  comfort.  She  had  Bowes  as  her  representative  at  Holy- 
rood, — Bowes,  the  constant  ally  of  the  enemies  of  the  king.  He 
wrote  again  and  again  to  ask  what  part  he  ought  to  take  as  regarded 
Bothwell.  His  questions  were  unanswered.  Bothwell  was  enter- 
tained on  the  English  Marches  by  Musgrave,  the  captain  of  Bew- 
castle.  Elizabeth  held  him  as  a  card  to  be  played  at  the  fitting 
moment,  just  as  she  had  held  Murray,  Morton,  Angus,  and  the 
other  foes  of  Mary  and  of  James.  Meanwhile  the  Northern  and 
Catholic  party  in  Scotland — Huntly,  Errol,  and  Angus — knew  what 


THE   SPANISH   BLANKS   (1593).  363 

was  to  be  expected  from  the  restored  Kirk.  James  had  taken 
nothing  by  his  surrender  to  the  preachers  ;  they  still  threatened,  still 
insulted,  and,  if  they  did  not  openly  back  Bothwell,  they  regarded 
him  as  "  a  sanctified  plague"  for  James's  behoof,  and  they  did  nothing 
in  the  way  of  excommunicating  a  noble  who  addressed  "their  godly 
wisdoms "  in  terms  so  flattering.  They  had  lost  "  the  ministers' 
king,"  the  pious  Angus,  cut  off  by  witchcraft.  His  successor  in  the 
earldom,  the  Angus  of  1592,  was  a  Catholic.  He  was  implicated  in 
the  great  Catholic  conspiracy,  which  now,  being  detected,  filled 
Scotland  with  rage  and  horror,  the  affair  of  the  Spanish  Blanks. 
After  the  execution  of  Queen  Mary,  the  Catholic  Powers,  especi- 
ally Spain  and  the  Pope,  found,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  English 
and  Scottish  Catholics  were  divided  in  policy.  Cardinal  Allen 
and  Father  Parsons,  with  other  English  managers,  were  in  favour 
of  a  Spanish  invasion  of  England  (hence  the  Armada),  while  Father 
Creighton  and  other  Scots  held  that 

"  He  who  would  England  win 
Must  with  Scotland  first  begin," 

and  credulously  believed  that  James  would  be  converted.  On  the 
failure  of  the  Armada  the  neglected  Scottish  Catholics,  as  we  have 
seen,  began  to  ask  Philip  to  come  their  way  (February  1589).  We 
have  described  the  capture  of  Pringle  with  letters  to  Spain  from 
Huntly,  Morton  (Maxwell),  and  Lord  Claude,  and  the  scene  when 
these  letters  were  read  aloud  before  their  authors.  The  affair  of 
Brig  o'  Dee  followed,  but  the  conspiracy  smouldered  on,  and  it  is 
probable  that  James  knew  of  and  tampered  with  it.  In  the  early 
part  of  1592  it  was  known  to  the  English  Government  (probably 
through  Pourie  himself)  that  Ogilvie,  the  younger  of  Pourie,  was 
to  be  sent  on  this  business  to  Spain.  Pourie,  of  whom  more  here- 
after, went  not;  but  on  December  27  one  of  the  Border  Kers, 
George,  brother  of  Mark,  Lord  Newbottle,  was  seized  in  the 
Cumbrae  Isles  by  the  Paisley  minister,  Andrew  Knox,  an  energetic 
man,  backed  by  students  of  Glasgow  University.  Ker  was  trying 
to  carry  to  Spain  letters  from  Huntly,  Angus,  Errol,  Fintry  (an 
honest  Catholic,  then  in  prison,  and  a  friend  of  Queen  Mary),  and 
others  of  the  party.  There  were  also  "  blanks,"  unwritten  sheets  of 
paper,  signed  by  the  chief  plotters,  and  to  be  filled  up  by  Father 
Creighton.  He  was  to  insert  above  the  signatures  the  terms  of  a 
treaty  which  he  was  to  arrange  with  Philip  for  an  invasion  by  the 


364  THE    SPANISH    BLANKS   (l593)- 

Spanish.  Letters  from  Father  Gordon  (Huntly's  uncle)  to  Father 
Creighton,  and  a  number  of  letters  to  exiles,  were  also  seized. 

Angus,  on  this  discovery,  was  put  in  ward,  but  James  was  mainly 
moved  by  the  English  patronage  of  Bothwell  and  the  non-arrival  of 
his  English  pension.  Ker  was  tortured  in  the  boot;  he  confessed 
that  a  Spanish  descent  on  Scotland  was  desired.  Later  he  was 
allowed  to  escape.^^  The  private  letters  in  the  packet  reveal  the 
condition  of  the  country.  "  Universally,  in  all  shires,  many  deadly 
feuds,  with  great  and  most  odious  slaughter,  without  punishment, 
reif  and  oppression  through  all  the  country.  God  wait  [?]  if  the 
Highlanders  lie  idle.  The  Macfarlanes  are  worse  than  the  Clan 
Gregor.  Alas !  the  great  hership  [plundering]  of  the  poor,  by 
these,  in  all  parts  where  there  are  any  goods."  It  was  easy  for 
the  preachers  to  blame  the  king  as  regards  these  excesses ;  but 
James  was  destitute :  police  he  had  none,  magistrates  were  parties 
to  the  crimes ;  the  royal  Guard  was  imbecile,  and  it  was  found 
impossible  to  keep  Bothwell  out  of  the  precincts  of  the  royal 
residences.  The  country  was  practically  in  collusion  with  the 
marauder,  who  was  distinctly  patronised,  or  at  least  all  uncen- 
sured,  by  the  preachers. 

On  the  discovery  of  the  Blanks  James  was  summoned  to  Edin- 
burgh early  in  January  1593.  There  were  suspicions  that  he  would 
favour  the  conspirators  of  the  Blanks,  who  were  not  much  less  loyal 
to  him  than  the  other  factions  among  his  people.  To  be  sure,  they 
proposed  to  capture  him  and  hold  him  at  the  disposal  of  Philip,  to 
deal  with  him  as  his  majesty  orders.''''  A  deputation  was  sent  to  the 
king  :  it  included  Andrew  Ker  of  Faldonside,  with  Bruce,  Andrew 
Melville,  and  other  preachers.  James  rebuked  them  for  having  held 
a  convention  without  his  knowledge,  but  promised  to  try  the  con- 
spirators. James  Melville  (January  14)  preached  against  the  king's 
grandfather  and  mother.  At  last,  January  15,  it  was  agreed  that 
James  should  be  allowed  to  have  a  guard  of  200  men.  To  keep 
him  without  a  guard  of  any  force  was  the  usual  economy,  as  every 
one  knew  that  his  own  party  might  at  any  moment  wish  to  invade 
the  royal  person.  James  (January  19)  mingled  his  grievance  against 
England  for  fostering  Bothwell  with  promises  of  severe  measures 
against  the  Catholics.  He  himself  would  march  against  Huntly.^^ 
While  the  host  was  summoned  to  proceed  against  Huntly  on 
February  25,  while  Fintry  (who  lay  in  prison)  was  ordered  to 
execution,  refusing   to   save   himself  by  turning   Protestant, *"=*  Eliz- 


ELIZABETH   ABETS   BOTHWELL.  365 

abeth  was  sending  Lord  Burgh  as  an  envoy  to  James.  On  February 
13  Angus  escaped,  probably  by  collusion,  from  Edinburgh  Castle. 
On  February  17  James  started  on  his  march  to  Aberdeen,  and 
Bothwell  had  an  address  to  the  preachers  placarded  at  the 
cross.  ^^ 

The  Catholic  leaders,  as  usual,  ran  away,  on  this  occasion  as  far 
as  Caithness.  But  James  was  suspected  by  Burgh  of  favouring  the 
rebels,  and  it  was  plain  that  he  did  not  intend  to  ruin  them  by  con- 
fiscation. That  policy  never  prospered,  in  fact  was  very  seldom 
permitted.  Mary  was  not  allowed  to  forfeit  Murray  and  Morton  : 
the  great  families,  though  in  separate  factions,  were  too  near  kin  to 
let  any  of  them  be  ruined.  Bothwell  by  this  time  was  in  friendly 
communication  with  Cecil,  and  Elizabeth  was  sending  Mr  Locke  to 
announce  her  acceptance  of  Bothwell's  offers.'^''  James  roundly 
informed  Burgh  that  if  Elizabeth  persisted  in  supporting  Bothwell, 
"  not  only  our  amity  is  at  an  end,  but  I  shall  be  enforced  to  join  in 
friendship  with  her  greatest  enemies  for  my  own  safety."  "^^  James 
was,  of  course,  bitterly  censured  for  his  leniency  to  the  Catholic 
lords.  But,  apart  from  his  want  of  power,  they  were  his  last  resort 
against  the  endless  treacheries  of  Elizabeth,  who  systematically 
aided  his  dangerous  and  insolent  personal  foes.  Through  her  ally, 
Bothwell,  she  was  to  win  another  triumph  of  insult  over  the  son  of 
her  victim,  Mary. 

It  was  once  more  the  turn  of  the  General  Assembly  (April  24)  to 
increase  the  perplexities  of  James.  They  demanded  "that  all 
Papists  within  the  realm  may  be  punished  according  to  the  laws  of 
God  and  this  realm."  '^"  The  laws  of  God,  as  far  as  they  are  published 
in  Holy  Scripture,  do  not,  indeed,  denounce  fine,  imprisonment, 
exile,  and  death  against  Catholics.  But  penalties  are  denounced 
against  idolaters  in  certain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the 
preachers  (who  alone  could  interpret  the  Word  of  God)  identified 
Catholics  with  idolaters.  If,  again,  any  one  asked  why  the  preach- 
ers were  infallible  interpreters  of  the  divine  will  (as  Ninian  Winzet 
asked  Knox),  the  answer  would  seem  to  be  that  parish  congre- 
gations are  inspired  in  their  popular  elections  of  preachers,  a  dogma 
which,  no  doubt,  could  be  supported  by  judiciously  "  waled " 
texts.  But  James  could  not,  and  would  not,  carry  out  to  the  full 
the  extirpation  of  his  Catholic  subjects.  In  May  and  June  in- 
trigues went  on  for  the  restoration  either  of  Arran  or  of  Maitland. 
Every  kind  of  violent  act,  abduction,  and  murder  was  frequent  in 


366  THE   KING'S   NOTES   AS   TO   SPAIN. 

Edinburgh.  The  queen,  for  some  personal  reason,  was  opposed  to 
Maitland's  return  to  power,  and  Bowes  tried,  but  vainly,  to  prevent 
the  despatch  of  Robert  Melville  as  an  envoy  to  Elizabeth.  At  the 
English  Court  Archibald  Douglas  had  almost  dropped  out  of  sight ; 
but  he  was  still  residing  in  London,  in  a  "  semi-official  "  way.  As 
far  back  as  June  1592  a  sympathetic  correspondent  in  Scotland 
told  him  that  "the  ministers  is  sorry  for  Bothwell,"  who,  if  at 
liberty,  "  would  put  all  the  papists  out  of  the  country."  ^^  It  is  a 
humorous  fact  that  Father  Creighton,  at  this  very  time,  reckoned 
Bothwell  in  a  list  of  Scottish  Catholics,  probably  with  reason. 
Bothwell  gulled  the  Kirk  (Jesuit  Archives). 

It  was  alleged  in  England  that  James,  too,  was  mixed  up  in  the 
intrigue  with  Spain,  and  apparently  that  his  advice  to  Spain  was 
seized  with  the  papers  of  George  Ker,  but  suppressed  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  king.  We  have  seen  that  at  the  time  when  the  Spanish 
Blanks  were  seized  the  Kirk  suspected  James  at  least  of  partiality 
to  the  Catholics  who  signed  them.  Calderwood  writes  :  "  Mr  John 
Davidson,  in  his  Diary,  recordeth  on  the  26th  of  May  (1593)  that 
among  the  letters  of  the  traffickers  intercepted  were  [st'c]  found  one 
to  the  Prince  of  Parma,  which  touched  the  king  with  knowledge 
and  approbation  of  the  trafficking,  and  promise  of  assistance,  &c., 
but  that  it  was  not  thought  expedient  to  publish  it.  Mr  John  was 
acquaint  with  the  discovery,  and  all  the  intercepted  letters."  ''* 

Now  it  seems  certain  that  there  actually  was  a  manuscript  of 
James's  among  the  papers  found  with  George  Ker.  It  is  printed  in 
the  'Hatfield  Calendar'  (iv.  214).  The  piece  is  really  a  balancing, 
after  the  manner  used  by  Cecil  and  Robinson  Crusoe,  of  the  pros 
and  cons  of  accepting  Spanish  assistance.  It  may  be  of  ]\Iarch- 
June  1592.  James  gives  first  the  reasons  which  may  be  put  for- 
ward in  favour  of  instant  action  by  Spain.  On  the  other  side  is  the 
unreadiness  of  Scotland.  "  Since  I  can  scarce  keep  myself  from 
some  of  their  invasions,  much  less  can  I  make  them  invade  other 
countries."  He  would  prefer  the  attempt  to  die  down,  as  too 
many  are  in  the  secret.  If  anything  is  to  be  done,  he  would  pre- 
fer to  do  it  himself,  with  some  small  help  of  foreign  men  and 
money.  But  he  knew  that  /te  could  not  do  it,  and  a  successful 
invasion  by  Philip  was  not  in  his  interest.  He  threw  cold  water  on 
the  whole  plot.  If  once  he  had  Scotland  settled,  and  was  in  the 
mind,  he  might  forewarn  Spain,  and  "  attain  to  our  purpose."  The 
paper  is  indorsed,  "  Copy  of  the  Scotch  King's  instructions  to  Spain, 


PROTESTANT   ANXIETY.  367 

which  should  have  been  sent  by  Pourie  Oge  "  (Ogilvie  of  Pourie), 
"but  thereafter  were  concredit  to  Mr  John  Ker,  and  withdrawn" 
(not  published)  "  at  his  taking  for  safety  of  his  Majesty's  honour  " 

(1593)- 

Any  one  who  reads  the  whole  document  will  find  that  James  has 
no  heart  for  the  project,  that  he  is  merely  "  driving  time,"  balancing 
arguments,  and  feebly  dreaming  of  what  great  things  he  might  do 
"when  I  like,  hereafter."  No  mortal  would  send  such  a  paper  as 
"Instructions  to  Spain,"  if  he  wanted  to  keep  Spain  friendly  to  his 
purpose.  Only  prejudice  could  style  the  paper  "  Instructions  to 
Spain."  Still  less  is  the  document,  as  Calderwood  quotes  David- 
son, "a  letter  to  the  Prince  of  Parma."  James  wanted  '■'■fewer 
strange  princes  in  the  secret  of  it."  The  paper  may  have  been 
meant  for  Father  Creighton,  to  quiet  that  bustling  priest,  or  it  may 
have  been  a  secret  memorandum  which  fell  into  Pourie's  hands, 
Pourie  being  an  impudent  rogue  and  double  spy.  The  memor- 
andum was  written  many  months  before  Ker's  intended  start  to 
Spain  with  the  Blanks ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  business  for 
which  the  Blanks  were  wanted  had  been  arranged  by  Creighton 
before  James's  memorandum  was  written,  as  Ker  confessed  under 
torture.  We  can  only  say  that  the  memorandum,  if  really  known 
to  the  preachers,  must  have  inflamed  their  habitual  suspicion  of 
James.  But  he  never  was  on  the  side  of  Huntly  and  the  other 
Catholic  peers.     They  knew  and  said  as  much  m  reports  to  Philip."^ 

He  sent  Robert  Melville  to  London,  and  Melville  there  found 
Archibald  Douglas  still  in  touch  with  the  English  Court,  and 
supported  at  the  expense  of  Elizabeth.'^^  Ehzabeth  in  July  saw 
Melville,  and  wrote  one  of  her  unintelligible  pieces  of  euphuism 
to  James,  avoiding  details  as  to  her  support  of  Bothwell.''"  At 
about  the  same  time  (June  22)  Maitland  at  last  returned  to  Court, 
attended  by  Hamilton,  Montrose,  Seton,  Glencairn,  Eglinton,  and 
others.  Lennox,  on  the  other  side,  who  shared  the  hatred  against 
Maitland  of  the  queen,  Bothwell,  and  most  of  the  nobles,  had  Mar, 
Morton,  Home,  and  the  Master  of  Glamis  among  his  backers, 
Arran  was  not  far  off,  passions  were  inflamed  by  various  feuds, 
Maitland  withdrew  to  Lethington  (June  28)."^  In  these  stormy 
days  Parliament  met,  and  Bothwell  was  forfeited,  but  the  Catholic 
earls  remained  untouched.  For  this  leniency  the  king's  Advocate, 
Makgill,  gave  reasons  in  law,  but  the  preachers  were  infuriated. 
Davidson   (July   22)   imprecated   "sanctified  plagues"  for  James's 


368  BOTHWELL   CAPTURES   THE   KING  (i593)- 

behoof.  As  that  "  sanctified  plague,"'  Bothwell,  surprised  and 
seized  James  on  July  24,  by  that  very  trap,  Lady  Cowrie's  house, 
which  James  had  tried  to  render  harmless,  Mr  Davidson's  prayer 
was  instantly  effectual :  he  was  a  prophet  as  well  as  a  poet.  The 
ungodly  might  even  suggest  that  Davidson  knew  what  was  im- 
pending, and  that  his  inspiration  had  no  source  more  di\-ine  or 
remote  than  the  English  Embassy,  Elizabeth  had  sent  Mr  Locke 
to  Scotland,  and  he,  with  Colville,  a  veteran  intriguer,  and  Both- 
well,  had  secretly  met  in  Edinburgh  and  organised  their  plot. 

Some  years  had  passed  since  the  king's  last  capture.  It  is  to 
be  noted  that  such  attempts  continued  to  be  made  almost  till  the 
year  when  he  attained  the  crown  of  England.  In  many  instances 
these  assaults  had  the  support,  or  at  least  the  sympathy,  of  the 
preachers.  It  is  improbable  that  the  king,  and  Scotland,  could 
ever  have  escaped  the  sufferings  consequent  on  such  anarchic 
methods  except  by  the  turn  of  events  which  placed  James  on 
the  throne  of  a  more  powerful  and  more  law-abiding  country 
than  his  ancestors  kingdom.  The  combinations  of  lawless  nobles 
and  powerful  preachers  must,  but  for  the  English  succession,  have 
been  fatal  to  Scottish  civilisation. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    XI IL 

^  Thorpe,  i.  542.  '  Calderwood,  iv.  611. 

*  Illustrations  of  Scottish  History,  Miss  Warrender,  p.  27. 

*  Spottiswoode,  ii.  365-371. 

'  Spanish  State  Papers,  ir.  45,  51,  100.   13S,  145,  308,  as  to  the  obduracy  of 
James.     Also  pp.  179,  204,  227,  320,  427,  429,  as  to  the  Catholic  traffickers. 
°  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  543,  544. 
"  Pn\-\-  Council  Register,  iv.  157,  158. 

*  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  243  ;  Murdin,  pp.  5S7,  5SS. 

*  The  report  of  the  case  is  derived  from  the  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (iv. 
166-16S). 

^^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  25S,  259.     May  22,  Richard  to  Archibald  Douglas. 

^  Gowrie  had  no  counsel,  Norfolk  had  none ;  Archibald  Douglas,  in  his  collusive 
trial,  had  pleaded  his  own  case,  as  he  was  well  qualified  to  do.  He  vowed  that 
he  "trusted  to  his  innocence,  and  desired  no  prolocutor."  The  Earl  of  Orkney 
had  prolocutors  (1615).  In  1600,  in  the  Gowrie  case,  the  accused  were  dead,  and 
their  representatives  dared  not  appear. 

^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  427-521.  "  Spanish  State  Papers,  iv.  141. 

"  Privy  Council  Register,  iv.  204,  205. 


NOTES.  Y^9 

"  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  295,  296.  J''  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  299-301, 

"  Autobiography  of  James  Melville,  p.  260. 

"  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  307,  317  ;  Calderwood,  iv.  677. 

^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iiL  313,  326;  March  18,  15S8. 

^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  322. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  iv.  277. 

^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iiL  326. 

■^  Calderw^ood,  iv.  678,  679  ;  Privy  Council  Register,  iv.  286-293. 

^  Calderwood,  iv.  679,  680. 

^  Border  Calendar,  iL  487. 

"^  Meh-ille  (the  Rev.),  pp.  262-264. 

""  Hatfield  Calendar,  iii.  349,  350. 

®  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  551,  552. 

^  Ashton  to  Hunsdon,  Thorpe,  Calendar,  L  552.  *>  Calderwood,  v.  1-3. 

^*  Calderwood,  v.  14-37 ;  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  555,  556. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  53,  54. 

^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  557. 

^  Privy  Council  Re;:;ister,  iv.  371-373. 

^  This  Angus,  successor  to  the  good  Presbyterian  Earl,  was  Douglas  of  Glen- 
bervie.  He  died  soon  afterwards,  and  his  son,  the  new  Angus,  was  a  Catholic. 
He  was  served  heir  to  his  father  in  November  1591. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  iv.  371-381;  Calderwood,  v.  54-56;  Spottiswoode, 
ii.  395  ;  Thorpe,  Calendar,  i.  559. 

""  Thorpe,  Calendar,  L  560. 

^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  563. 

^  Calderwood,  ii.  57,  58. 

**  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  p.  157. 

'*^  Papers  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  pp.  161 -164. 

^  Spottiswoode,  ii.  400-404. 

^  Spottiswoode,  iL  408.  Compare  Calderwood,  v.  95,  96,  who  says  nothing 
'A  the  king's  threat. 

'^  Calderwoofi,  v.  100-104. 

^  For  "Witchcraft"  see  Mr  Gumly,  in  'Phantasms  of  the  Living.' 

^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii,  591  ;    Border  Calendar,  L  379,  No.  709. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  132. 

*®  Calderwood,  v.  106,  112. 

*®  James  Melville,  pp.  272-276. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  140,  141  ;  Thorpe,  Calendar,  iL  600. 

'^  Calderwood,  v.  142,  143. 

^  Gregory,  History  of  the  Western  Highlands  and  Isles,  pp.  245-253. 

^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  iL  600. 

**  Privy  Council  Register,  iv,  725.  ^  Privj'  Council  Register,  iv.  733. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  148.  *''  Calderwood,  v.  150-156. 

*  Melville,  p.  294.  "  Second  Book  of  Discipline,  iii.  12. 

**  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  609.  ^  Calderwood,  v.  169. 

*2  Bowes  to  Burghley,  August  15,  Thorpe,  Calendar,  p.  611  ;  Calderwood,  v. 
173,  174.  See  also,  in  '  Border  Minstrelsy,'  the  ballad  of  "The  Laird  of  Logic," 
and  in  Chiid's  'English  and  Scottish  Ballads.' 

®  Calderwood,  v.  179. 

•*  Calderwood,  v.  186-190.  Bowes  to  Burghley,  December  4,  Thorpe,  Calendar^ 
ii.  618.     For  Lady  Gowrie,  cf.  Thorpe,  ii.  611,  No,  6. 

VOL.    IL  2  A 


370  NOTES. 

''"'  The  letters  are  in  Calderwood,  v.  192-214.  See  also  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii. 
618-623.  Also  '  A  Discoverie  of  the  unnatural  and  traiterous  Conspiracie  of 
Scottish  Papists,'  published  by  the  king's  command.  John  Norton,  London. 
1593.     For  the  Spanish  view,  Spanish  State  Papers,  iv,  603-606. 

''^  Spanish  State  Papers,  iv.  606. 

^'  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  622. 

^  Forbes  -  Leith,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  pp.  220,  221.  Quoting 
Father  Tyrie's  report.  State  Papers,  Elizabeth,  MS.,  vol.  1.  No.  4.  Appar- 
ently not  Calendared. 

^^  Calderwood,  v.  231.  ''**  Thorpe,  Calendar,  v.  624-626. 

^^  Tytler,  ix.  89,  citing  Warrender  MSS.  These,  for  long  supposed  to  have 
perished  by  fire,  have  recently  been  rediscovered,  and  are  of  importance. 

''*  Calderwood,  v.  241. 

^■^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  206.  Francis  Tennant,  a  bourgeois  spy,  later  hanged, 
to  Archibald  Douglas,  June  4,  1592. 

7*  Calderwood,  v.  251. 

^'  Spanish  State  Papers,  iv.  5S8-592,  603-607.  Mr  Hume  Brown  (ii.  216)  says 
that  James  had  a  secret  understanding  with  the  Catholic  earls,  and  cites  '  Spanish 
State  Papers,'  iv.  603.  But  compare  the  same  series,  iv.  606  and  617,  and  Major 
Martin  Hume's  'Treason  and  Plot'  with  Mr  T.  G.  Law  in  'Miscellany  of  the 
Scottish  History  Society,'  vol.  i.  I  venture  to  think  that  James  did  little  worse 
than  avoid  the  last  extremities  with  the  Catholic  earls,  keeping  in  touch  with 
their  schemes  as  an  ultimate  resource.     Cf.   p.   38S,   note. 

''^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  334. 

'''  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  344. 

'^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  629,  630. 


371 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

INTRIGUES    OF    SPAIN,    ENGLAND,    AND    EOTHWELL. 
1593-1595- 

Bothwell's  new  enterprise  was  at  once  the  most  grotesque  and  the 
most  picturesque  of  those  to  which  James  fell  a  victim.  A  Stewart 
and  a  Hepburn,  Bothwell  was  aided  by  the  clan  of  which  his  king 
was  the  chief.  Lennox,  and  Ochiltree,  and  Atholl,  all  in  the  plot, 
were  all  Stewarts  (the  existing  House  of  Atholl  are  Murrays  of  Tulli- 
bardine  in  the  male  line  and  Stewarts  by  female  descent).  The 
Countess  of  Atholl  was  a  daughter  of  Lady  Cowrie,  whose  revenge 
for  her  husband's  execution  in  1584,  and  for  the  insults  and  injuries 
inflicted  on  herself  by  Arran,  had  never  yet  been  sated.  The  House 
of  Cowrie  had  been  restored  in  1585,  on  Arran's  fall,  to  its  lands  and 
dignities ;  its  head,  John,  Earl  of  Cowrie,  was  at  this  time  a  youth  of 
sixteen  or  seventeen,  who  had  been  studying  in  the  University  of 
Edinburgh  under  the  celebrated  minister,  Mr  RoUock.  Probably  he 
was  now  at  work  on  his  thesis  for  his  Master's  degree,  which  he  took 
in  August.  He  was  then  an  ardent  Protestant,  and  we  shall  presently 
find  him  already  engaged  in  a  revolutionary  conspiracy  against  the 
king.  We  are  not  informed,  however,  that  he  was  present  or  took 
any  part  in  Bothwell's  new  enterprise,  though  it  had  for  its  base 
the  town  house  of  the  Cowrie  family — the  house  which  James  had 
held  in  suspicion  (p.  362). 

The  house  of  the  Cowries  was  behind  and  adjacent  to  the  Palace 
of  Holyrood,  and  thither  on  the  night  of  July  23  Bothwell,  with  the 
basely  adventurous  John  Colville,  was  secretly  conveyed.  Between 
the  Cowrie  mansion  and  the  palace  was  a  covered  passage  patent  at 
all  times.  Coming  through  this  passage,  from  the  palace.  Lady 
Atholl  led  back  Bothwell  and  Colville  into  James's  ante-chamber,  hid 


372      BOTIIWELL   AND   COLVILLE   TRAP  THE    KING   (1593) 

them  behind  the  arras,  and  locked  the  door  of  the  queen's  chamber. 
Here,  it  seems  probable,  they  waited  while  the  gentlemen  of  the  clan 
of  Stewart  took  possession  of  the  outer  and  inner  courts  of  Holyrood 
in  the  grey  of  the  July  dawn.  James,  early  astir,  was  "private  in  a 
retiring-room,"  his  majesty's  clothes  were  loose,  and  "  the  points  of 
his  hose  not  knitted  up,"  when  Colville  and  Bothwell  appeared  before 
him  with  drawn  swords  in  their  hands.  Bothwell  said  to  the  king, 
"  Lo,  my  good  bairn,  you  that  have  given  out  that  I  sought  your  life, 
it  is  now  in  this  hand  1 "  So  Bothwell  later  told  the  Dean  of  Dur- 
ham.^ James,  with  a  cry  of  treason,  fled  as  well  as  he  could  to  the 
queen's  chamber.  The  door  was  locked.  He  turned  and  called  the 
intruders  false  traitors,  bidding  them  strike  if  they  durst.  Bothwell 
and  Colville  knelt  down,  AthoU  and  Ochiltree  arrived  and  interceded 
for  the  impudent  suppliants.  James  derided  their  pretence  of 
asking  for  forgiveness  and  offering  to  "  thole  an  assize "  on  the 
old  charge  of  witchcraft.  He  would  not  live  a  prisoner  and  dis- 
honoured. Bothwell,  still  kneeling,  kissed  the  hilt  of  his  sword  and 
offered  it  to  James,  lowering  his  head  and  tossing  aside  his  long 
love-locks.  James  rose  and  took  Bothwell  apart  into  the  embrasure 
of  a  window.  News  had  now  reached  the  citizens,  "  the  bells 
were  rung  backward  " ;  the  burgesses,  however,  gathered  but  slowly. 
They  may  have  heard  Davidson's  sermon  ;  was  it  for  them  to  in- 
terfere between  the  king  and  "  sanctified  plagues "  ?  Hume  of 
North  Berwick,  with  a  few  other  gentlemen,  came  under  the  king's 
windows,  offering  to  rescue  him  or  lose  their  lives.  Sir  James 
Melville  was  with  Hume,  and  "  cried  up  at  the  window  of  his 
majesty's  chamber,  asking  how  he  did  ?  He  came  to  the  window, 
and  said  all  would  be  well  enough, — he  had  agreed  with  them  on 
certain  conditions,  '  which  are  presently  to  be  put  into  writing. 
Therefore,'  said  he,  'cause  so  many  of  the  town  as  are  come  to  my 
relief  to  stay  in  the  abbey  kirkyard  till  I  send  them  further  word, 
and  return  again  within  half  an  hour  yourself. '  "  But  few  of  the 
town  had  gathered,  and  these  now  retired,  "  so  great  was  their  mis- 
content  for  the  time  that  many  desired  a  change."  Melville  then 
went  to  the  rooms  of  the  Danish  ambassadors,  who  sent  him  back 
to  make  anxious  inquiries.  James  appeared  at  the  window  with  the 
queen  and  said  that  all  was  well.  Melville  was  later  admitted  to 
see  James,  quoted  Plutarch,  and  prosed  in  the  manner  of  Polonius 
Later  James  met  the  ambassadors,  but  could  not  tell  them  whether 
he  was  captive   or  not.     Captive  he  was ;    a  new  guard  was  ap- 


TERMS   OF   BOTHWELL.  IJ ^ 

pointed,  under  Ochiltree,  one  of  the  conspirators.^  There  was 
something  obscure  and  unfathomable  in  this  plot.  Bothvvell,  we 
shall  see,  met  the  Dean  of  Durham,  who  on  August  15  favoured 
Burghley  with  a  second  account  of  his  interview  with  Bothwell, 
fuller  than  that  of  August  5.  The  Queen  of  Scotland,  the  Dean 
said,  was  "  not  unacquainted  with  his  greatest  affairs,"  and  the  Dean 
seems  to  hint  that  she  was  better  for  England  to  deal  with  than  the 
king.  Moreover,  she  was  jealous  of  Morton's  "fayre  daughter." 
A  letter  had  been  written  as  to  the  succession  to  the  Scottish 
throne,  intercepted,  and  brought  to  Bothwell.  The  Dean  ends  by 
strenuously  recommending  Bothwell  to  Elizabeth  as  "  likeliest  to  do 
her  faithfuUest  service  in  that  country."  It  is  useless  to  guess  at 
the  intrigue  as  to  the  Scottish  throne  :  it  is  not  credible  that  the 
young  Gowrie  was  thought  of,  on  the  strength  of  his  fabled  Tudor 
descent,^ 

Whatever  Bothwell's  secret  purposes  and  his  relations  with  James's 
queen  may  have  been,  the  conditions  which  he  accepted  from  James 
were  these  :  Full  remission  of  all  offences  for  himself  and  his 
accomplices,  to  be  ratified  in  the  Parliament  of  November  1593. 
Home,  Maitland,  the  Master  of  Glamis,  and  Sir  George  Hume  to  be 
dismissed  from  office  ;  Bothwell  and  the  rest  meanwhile  to  retire 
"  where  they  thought  good."  Lennox,  AthoU,  the  Master  of  Gray, 
the  Provost,  the  bailies,  and  six  preachers  signed  this  treaty;*  "the 
ministers  of  the  Kirk  showed  themselves  highly  gratified  at  Both- 
well's return,"  says  Bowes. 

Such  was  the  plot,  directed  from  England  by  the  Ministers  of 
Elizabeth,  and  worked  by  the  Stewarts  and  Ruthvens  of  Gowrie.  It 
demonstrates  the  utter  helplessness  of  James,  who,  denounced  by 
his  clergy,  lost  the  services  of  his  father's  murderer,  Maitland ;  and, 
betrayed  by  his  own  clan,  was  thrown  on  the  mercy  of  his  most 
insolent  rebel.  If,  in  such  circumstances  as  these,  James  was  un- 
willing to  extirpate  his  Catholic  subjects,  and  tempted  to  look 
abroad  for  the  assistance  denied  him  by  his  kinswoman,  Elizabeth, 
by  his  clan,  and  by  his  clergy,  perhaps  he  cannot  be  very  severely 
blamed.  His  Catholic  earls,  the  Spanish  party  in  Scotland,  did 
blame  him  for  keeping  them  in  hand  while  he  had  no  intention  of 
joining  them.^ 

Bothwell  now  rode  to  Berwick,  met  John  Carey  (son  of  Lord 
Hunsdon),  professed  his  gratitude  to  Elizabeth,  and  announced  his 
hope  of  being  made  "  Lord  Lieutenant  of  the  whole  country."     The 


374  BOTHWELL   ACQUITTED   OF   WITCHCRAFT. 

ambition  of  his  accomplice,  John  Colville,  was  to  be  Secretary  of 
State !  Bothwell  then  rode  to  Durham,  on  his  southward  way, 
quartered  himself  on  Toby  Matthew,  Dean  of  Durham,  already 
mentioned,  and  regaled  the  horrified  dignitary  of  a  respectable 
Church  by  a  lively  account  of  his  performances.^  He  had  not 
betrayed  Elizabeth  to  James,  he  said ;  and  he  had  told  the  king  that 
he  might  forget  the  death  of  Mary,  as  James  had  forgiven  it.  He 
advised  that  a  plan  of  Elizabeth's  for  uniting  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  parties  in  Scotland  should  be  deferred,  "lest  the  multi- 
tude of  the  one  may  in  time,  and  that  soon,  wreck  the  other,  being 
fewer  in  number,  and  so  become  rulers  of  the  king."  Hence  it 
would  appear  that  the  Catholics  were  still  a  numerical  majority, 
which  is  unexpected.  Bothwell  then  wrote  a  letter  to  Elizabeth, 
"Most  Renowned  Empress,"  kissing  "her  heavenly  hands."  Had 
he  been  an  English  subject,  Bothwell  would  have  rivalled  Essex — he 
wrote  in  the  style  that  Gloriana  loved.  He  picked  up  on  the 
Borders  some  hounds  and  horses  for  James,  and  was  "  cleansed  "  of 
witchcraft  at  his  assize  on  August  lo.  Being  in  power,  he  was 
acquitted,  but  a  letter  to  him  from  John  Colville,  later,  makes  it 
very  probable  that  Bothwell  had  really  tried  an  experiment  in 
poisoning  James,  by  aid  of  Richard  Graham,  the  wizard.  He 
had  only  dealt  with  the  wizard  Graham,  he  said,  in  the  interests 
of  the  dying  Angus.'^ 

From  that  day  it  is  almost  impossible  to  paint  the  maelstrom  of 
eddies,  waves,  and  cross-currents  of  tides  upon  which  James  swam 
like  a  cork,  now  submerged,  now  visible  to  the  anxious  eye.  He 
owed  his  life,  probably,  to  the  circumstance  that  he  had  no  successor 
in  whose  interest  it  was  worth  while  to  kill  the  king.  Hamilton  had 
a  better  claim  than  Lennox,  among  the  Stewarts  Bothwell  was  of  an 
illegitimate  branch,  AthoU  and  Ochiltree  were  much  too  remote, 
Gowrie  can  hardly  have  been  thought  of,  and,  in  any  case,  all, 
though  banded  together  by  the  blood -feud  for  the  bonny  Earl 
Moray,  were  too  jealous  of  each  other  to  attempt  a  change  of 
dynasty.  James's  queen  was  a  Bothwellian  :  chiefly  because  she 
hated  Maitland,  partly  because  she  always  opposed  her  husband, 
partly,  perhaps,  because  Bothwell  was  "a  gay  gallant"  and  an 
amusing  companion. 

On  the  night  of  the  day  after  Bothwell's  acquittal  on  the  charge 
of  witchcraft  James  had  arranged  an  escape.  The  Humes  were  at 
feud  with  the  Hepburns, — the  whole  tangle  is  a  mass  of  family 


STRANGE   INTRIGUE   OF   ELIZABETH.  375 

feuds, — and  Home  was  a  Catholic.  The  idea  was  that  Huntly 
should  be  ready  with  his  Gordons,  Home  with  his  Humes,  and,  as 
James  had  an  unwonted  tetidresse  for  the  daughter  of  Morton  (that 
is,  Douglas  of  Lochleven),  Morton  also  was  in  the  affair.  Three 
Erskines  about  the  king's  person  were  of  the  king's  party,  and  two  of 
his  gentlemen,  Lesley  and  Ogilvy,  were  reckoned  trustworthy.  James 
gave  out  that  he  was  to  ride  to  Falkland,  but  a  speedy  nag  was 
intended  to  bear  him  to  Morton's  house,  Lochleven,  while  Home 
was  to  attack  the  hostile  faction  in  Edinburgh.  But  in  the  grey 
dawn  of  August  11  Lesley  was  detected  as  he  stole  through  the 
palace  grounds  with  James's  ring  and  a  letter  for  Home.^  So 
wakeful  a  guerilla  soldier  as  Bothwell  was  not  to  be  caught  asleep  : 
the  Erskines,  Thomas  and  James,  Ogilvy,  and  Lesley  were  handed 
over  to  Ochiltree's  guardsmen,  and  a  quarrel  broke  out  between 
Bothwell  and  James.  He  would  not  leave  the  king,  or  let  him  out 
of  his  power,  till  he  was  formally  restored  by  Parliament  and  had 
avenged  the  bonny  Earl  Moray.  Bowes  was  called  for,  and  protested, 
with  an  innocent  air,  against  the  enterprises  of  Bothwell.  The 
preachers  and  burgesses  arranged  a  modus  vtvendi,  being,  "  after  a 
sort,"  guarantors  of  the  king's  promises.  Bothwell  on  one  side, 
Maitland,  Home,  and  the  Master  of  Glamis  on  the  other,  were  to 
avoid  the  Court  till  Parliament  met  in  November.  So  Bruce,  the 
preacher,  wrote  to  the  presbytery  of  Dunfermline  (August  15).^ 

On  September  9  a  convention  assembled  at  Stirling.  A  strange 
cross-current  arose  from  the  intrigues  of  Elizabeth  and  of  Cecil's 
son,  Sir  Robert,  who  now  was  chief  English  manager  of  Scot- 
tish affairs.  We  have  seen  that  Bothwell,  immediately  after  the 
success  at  Holyrood,  entertained  the  Dean  of  Durham  with  Eliz- 
abeth's plan  for  uniting  Scottish  Protestants  and  Catholics.  How 
she  expected  fire  and  water  to  become  bosom  friends  it  is  hard 
to  understand,  and  Bowes  (September  6)  wrote  to  express  his 
bewilderment.  The  arrangement  could  not  be  concealed  from 
"  jQ^(>£,6" — that  is,  the  preachers.  As  Huntly  and  the  Catholics 
were  certain  to  demand  religious  toleration,  the  preachers  would 
be  purely  frantic.  Like  Lord  Hamilton,  when  James  ventured 
to  hint  at  toleration,  they  would  exclaim,  "  Then  are  we 
all  gone,  then  are  we  all  gone,  then  are  we  all  gone !  If 
there  were  no  more  to  withstand,  I  will  withstand."^*' 

The  desperate  intrigue,  however,  certainly  went  on  till  Elizabeth 
presently  shook  off  Huntly  and  the  Catholics,  with  whom  she  was 


376  JAMES   ESCAPES   FROM   BOTHWELL. 

certainly  intriguing  as  late  as  September  6.  Elizabeth,  indeed,  had 
apparently  thrown  over  Bothwell,  in  a  letter  of  August  23,  bidding 
James  "  kingly  and  resolutely  make  his  unsound  subjects  know 
his  power,"  and  expressing  her  doubt  whether  the  news  of  his 
arrangement  with  his  rebel  was  not  an  auditory  hallucination  of 
her  own.^^  On  September  6  Bowes  wrote  that  "  Huntly  and  his 
friends  will  go  forward  agreeable  to  their  offers  to  her  majesty,"  ^- 
though  he  also  expressed,  as  we  saw,  his  perplexity  about  the 
arrangement.  At  Linlithgow  (September  11)  Bothwell  was  ap- 
prised that  he  must  not  come  near  Jarries,  though  he  would  be 
formally  restored  by  Parliament  in  November ;  after  which  he 
must  quit  the  realm  till  he  had  licence  to  return. ^^  James,  in 
fact,  had  recovered  his  liberty,  and  he  left  Stirling  with  Lennox. 
Why  Lennox  had  deserted  Bothwell  is  uncertain,  but  he  may 
have  heard  of  his  ambitious  design  to  become  Lieutenant-Gentral 
of  the  whole  kingdom.  Mar  and  Morton  accompanied  James 
to  Lochleven,  and  there  he  was  joined  by  Home  and  the  gentle- 
men of  his  name,  with  the  Master  of  Glamis.  All  these,  by  the 
original  compact  with  Bothwell,  had  been  debarred  the  Court. 
Maitland  with  the  Kers  of  Cessford  also  came  to  James,  and  it 
was  clear  that  the  Stewart-Ruthven-Bothwell  combination  against 
their  chief  was  broken  up,  while  on  September  22,  by  public 
proclamation  at  Edinburgh  Cross,  Bothwell  was  forbidden  to  ap- 
proach the  king  under  pain  of  treason.^*  Ochiltree  ceased  to  be 
captain  of  the  Guard ;  the  post  was  given  to  Home,  a  Catholic  : 
to  be  sure  the  Guard  never  interfered  with  any  gentleman  who 
had  a  fancy  for  kidnapping  his  monarch. 

Elizabeth  remarked  (October  7)  that,  inured  as  she  was  to 
Scottish  revolutions,  "  I  should  never  leave  wondering  at  such 
strange  and  uncouth  actions.  .  .  .  One  while  I  receive  a  writ  of 
oblivion  and  forgiveness,  then  a  revocation  with  new  additions  of 
later  consideration."  "Sometimes,  some  you  call  traitors  with  pro- 
claim" (meaning  Huntly,  Angus,  and  Errol),  "and  anon  there 
must  be  no  proof  allowed,  though  never  so  apparent  against 
them."  Elizabeth  had  abandoned  her  intrigue  with  Huntly,  hence 
these  tears.  "And  for  Bothwell !  Jesus!  Did  ever  any  muse 
more  than  I  that  you  could  so  quietly  put  up  so  temerarious 
indigne  a  fact.  ...  I  refer  me  to  my  own  letters  what  doom 
I  gave  thereof."  Elizabeth  had  a  disinterested  passion  for  lying  : 
James,    of  course,  knew  perfectly  well  that  Bothwell's  shaft  came 


IMPOSSIBILITY   OF   RELIGIOUS   TOLERATION.  377 

out  of  her  quiver.^^  Probably  Elizabeth's  letter  was  written  after 
Carey  (September  29)  had  given  Cecil  alarming  news  from  Berwick. 
The  king  had  nobody  to  whom  he  could  intrust  his  personal  safety 
except  the  Catholics.  "  There  is  nothing  but  peace,  and  seeking  to 
link  all  the  nobility  together,  which  I  hope  will  never  l>e."'^'^ 

The  preachers  were  as  little  in  love  with  peace  as  Carey.  Toler- 
ance in  religion  has  become  so  much  a  commonplace  to  recent 
generations  that  we  can  scarcely  understand  the  ferocity  which  the 
ministers  of  the  Kirk  were  to  display  at  this  and  other  critical 
moments.  But  their  behaviour  is  intelligible,  if  we  accept  the 
statements,  already  cited,  of  Archibald  Douglas  and  of  Bothwell. 
The  Catholics  may  still  have  been — according  to  Bothwell,  they 
were — the  numerical  majority  in  Scotland,  There,  as  in  England, 
they  were  denied  the  exercise  of  their  faith  by  an  organised  revolu- 
tionary minority.  The  Indifferents,  it  is  probable  (or  to  the 
preachers  it  seemed  probable),  would  openly  desert  the  Kirk  as 
soon  as  toleration  was  proclaimed.  The  Church  is  infinitely 
more  agreeable  than  the  Kirk  to  the  natural  man.  Not  to  speak 
of  the  charms  of  her  service,  of  her  music  and  other  ecclesiastical 
arts,  the  Church  had  thrown  her  sanction  over  holidays  and  harmless 
sports,  over  all  the  innocent  traditional  recreations  and  mummeries 
which  Stubbes  was  reviling  in  '  The  Anatomy  of  Abuses.'  Relics 
of  paganism,  of  agricultural  magic,  these  May-day,  or  Easter,  or 
Christmas  amusements  may  have  been,  but  all  the  offence  had 
been  purged  from  them  :  their  original  significance  was  lost,  though 
now  in  many  cases  recovered  by  the  researches  of  Mannhardt  and 
Mr  Frazer.  To  these  things,  if  once  toleration  was  granted,  the 
populace  would  eagerly  revert.  They  would  gladly  be  emancipated, 
too,  from  the  inquisitorial  tyranny  of  kirk-sessions,  the  prurient  pry- 
ing into  the  details  of  private  morals  or  absence  of  morals,  a  sub- 
ject to  which  we  shall  return.  It  is  the  boast  of  writers  who  take 
the  traditional  view  of  the  Reformation  in  Scotland,  that  it  raised 
the  moral  tone  of  the  country.  To  do  this  was  the  object  of  the 
Presbyterian  clergy,  but  their  own  manifestos  constantly  bear  testi- 
mony to  their  failure.  Profanity,  adultery,  simple  fornication,  incest, 
murder,  and  robbery  were  rife,  and  this  condition  of  morals  was 
not  peculiar  to  parishes  inadequately  served  by  ministers,  or  not 
"  planted  "  with  ministers  at  all. 

Thanks  to  the  ministers,  education  was  relatively  prosperous,  and 
the  University  of  St  Andrews,  under  a  scholar  and  Latin  poet  like 


378  MORALS   OF  THE   AGE. 

Andrew  Melville  and  his  "Regents,"  was  perhaps  not  inferior,  in 
elegance  and  range  of  learning,  to  the  same  university  to-day.  But 
the  education,  for  one  reason  or  another,  bore  but  scanty  fruit  in 
literature.  In  the  June  of  the  year  with  which  we  are  concerned 
(1593)  Christopher  Marlowe  died  in  London,  a  great  poet  in  a 
throng  of  great  poets.  To  compare  with  these  what  had  Scotland 
to  show?  Of  her  poetry  in  that  age,  what  remains  in  common 
knowledge  except  such  ballads  as  "The  Queen's  Marie"  and  "The 
Bonny  Earl  Moray  "  ? 

Meanwhile  the  intolerance  of  the  Kirk  must  have  bred  the  ugly 
vice  of  religious  hypocrisy.  The  crypto-Catholics  and  Indifferents 
were  compelled  to  a  hypocritical  compliance  with  the  Kirk.  Writers 
like  Mr  Froude  have  applauded  the  honesty  of  the  Reformers,  men 
who  would  not  pretend  to  believe  in  what  they  deemed  to  be  a  lie. 
But  the  pretence  of  this  belief  was  enforced  on  reluctant  Catholics. 
The  coolest  and  darkest  intriguer  of  the  age,  Logan  of  Restalrig, 
would  end  a  treasonable  letter  with  "  Christ  have  you  in  His  holy 
keeping."  As  to  the  public  morals  of  the  age,  a  whole  generation 
after  the  Reformation,  every  page  of  this  book  testifies  to  their 
unspeakable  iniquity.  One  thing  was  obvious  to  the  preachers — 
admit  toleration,  and,  as  Hamilton  said,  "  then  are  we  all  gone." 
The  country  would  veer  round  to  the  ancient  faith  :  Presbyterian 
excommunication,  that  cruel  weapon,  that  "gully  of  absolute 
power,"  would  become  a  jest.  The  ancient  Church  would  return, 
and  where  would  the  holders  of  Church  lands  be  ?  When  we  look 
at  the  patriotism  of  the  persecuted  English  Catholics,  in  face  of  the 
Armada,  we  ask  why  these  men  were  forbidden  the  exercise  of  a 
religion  which  left  them  true  to  their  country?  It  might  rather 
appear  that  tolerance  would  remove  all  temptation  to  treasonable 
dealings  with  France  or  Spain.  The  Scottish  Catholics  could  only 
hope  to  escape  a  grinding  persecution  by  aid  of  foreign  Powers. 
It  is  impossible  to  pretend  that  the  Protestants  were  ethically 
better  men  than  the  Catholics.  But  the  preachers  knew  their 
own  business.  Grant  toleration,  "  and  then  are  we  all  gone,"  the 
Kirk  and  the  lay  holders  of  Church  lands  in  Scotland  would  be 
swamped  and  lost  in  the  reaction,  and  what  the  preachers  believed 
to  be  "  the  Truth  "  would  perish  among  men.  They  were  as  con- 
vinced, and  as  despotic,  as  St  Dominic. 

The  king  was  known  to  be  capable  of  tolerance,  like  his  mother. 
In  1584  Father  Holt  had  written,  "He  has  evidently  made  up  his 


PRESBYTERIAN   EXCOMMUNICATIONS   (1593).  379 

mind  to  grant  full  liberty  of  worship,  provided  he  can  do  so  con- 
sistently with  his  own  personal  safety,  and  the  peace  of  the 
country."  ^"^  He  had  especially  no  wish  to  alarm  the  Catholics 
of  England  by  proving  himself  a  persecutor.  Thus,  for  the 
preachers,  the  most  drastic  measures  were  a  matter  of  life  and 
death. 

P'ife,  where  the  two  Melvilles  ruled,  was  foremost  in  the  agita- 
tion. The  Provincial  Assembly  met  at  St  Andrews  on  September 
25?  1593-  Davidson  was  present — the  most  irreconcilable  of  the 
Brethren.  The  danger,  he  said,  proceeded  from  "the  defection  of 
the  king,"  who  had  shaken  off  Bothwell,  that  sanctified  plague.  It 
was  proposed  to  excommunicate  the  Catholic  earls,  who,  when 
undergraduates  at  St  Andrews,  must  have  signed  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  James  Melville  pronounced  the  sentence,  and  delivered 
them  to  Satan.  All  who  harboured  them  were  placed  under  the 
same  anathema.  The  sentence  of  these  shepherds  of  the  East 
Neuk  was  to  be  intimated  in  every  kirk  in  the  kingdom.  A  fast 
was  declared  to  atone  for  many  sins,  and  the  persecution  of  the 
English  Puritans,  and  the  commercial  intercourse  with  Spain. 
Three  preachers  were  sent  to  scold  Morton  for  dealing  with 
idolaters.     Home  was  given  into  the  hands  of  Satan. 

While  the  preachers  thus  employed  the  spiritual  weapon,  a 
new  and  very  dangerous  conspiracy  against  the  king  was  rising 
in  the  North.  Bothwell  kept  all  the  country  south  of  Forth  in 
agitation :  he  was  now  approached  by  a  group  of  Northern  lords. 
Atholl  on  October  8  wrote  to  him  from  Dunkeld,  addressing  him 
as  "  My  Lord  and  Loving  Brother."  He  feared  that  the  "  Spanish 
factionaries,"  Huntly,  Errol,  and  Angus,  were  likely  to  win  over 
the  king,  "  to  the  imminent  peril  of  religion,"  and  to  the  endanger- 
ment  of  relations  with  Elizabeth,  "  that  most  gracious  and  benign 
queen."  He  therefore  advised  Bothwell  to  listen  to  Henry  Locke, 
the  man  whom  Cecil  used  in  his  darkest  enterprises.  Bothwell 
was  to  deal  through  Locke  with  Elizabeth,  who  had  in  that  very 
week  been  expressing  to  James  her  horror  of  Bothwell !  Atholl 
added  that  he  would  aid  Bothwell  against  James,  and  that  his 
allies  were  the  Earls  of  Cowrie  and  Murray,  the  Masters  of 
Montrose  and  Gray,  and  the  Forbeses.^^ 

James  was  not  unaware  of  the  machinations  of  Atholl  and 
Cowrie.  They  were  holding  a  convention  at  the  Castle  of  Doune 
when  James  made  a  descent  on  them.     Atholl  had  warning  and 


3S0  ALLIANCE   OF    BOTHWELL   AND   GOWRIE. 

fled  :  ]\Iontrose  and  Cowrie  awaited  the  king's  arrival,  "  and  wei 
hardlie  persevit  be  the  king's  companie,  and  in  perrele  to  have 
been  slayne,"  had  not  Lord  Hamilton  rescued  them.^^  Spottis- 
woode  says  that  Bothwell  had  trysted  with  Atholl  at  Stirling  for 
an  effort  against  the  king  for  October  i  ;  that  Atholl  arrived,  but 
found  that  James  had  gone  to  Linlithgow,  where  were  Hamilton 
and  other  nobles.  Bothwell,  knowing  this,  did  not  "keep  tryst" 
with  Atholl,  who  pretended  that  he  had  mustered  his  men  at 
Doune  Castle  (the  house  of  the  Earl  of  Moray)  merely  to  hold 
a  court.  James  did  not  accept  this  excuse, — what  court  needed  the 
presence  of  Atholl,  Cowrie,  Montrose,  and  Moray  ?  Home  was 
sent  to  reconnoitre,  and  then  took  Montrose  (and  Cowrie,  as  Moysie 
adds).2°  (It  was  at  this  time,  October  8,  that  Atholl  wrote  to  Both- 
well  as  to  dealing  with  England  through  Cecil's  agent,  Locke.) 
Montrose  explained  that  he  was  merely  a  messenger  from  Atholl  to 
explain  to  James  that  they  were  all  engaged  in  holding  a  court  of 
justice. 

He  was  dismissed,  and  the  affair  passed  over  at  the  time ;  but 
the  intrigues  between  the  Atholl  confederacy,  Bothwell,  and  the 
agents  of  England  endured.  Young  Cowrie,  now  an  Edinburgh 
student  of  sixteen  or  seventeen,  was  in  1600  to  become  famous  for 
the  mystery  of  his  death,  and  his  alleged  conspiracy.  He  is  already 
seen  as  a  partner  in  what  might  have  proved  a  new  Raid  of  Ruthven. 
This  conspiracy,  though  it  never  came  to  a  head,  pervaded  politics 
till  the  summer  of  1594,  and  attempted  to  place  itself  under  the 
aegis  of  the  Kirk,  to  which  Cowrie,  as  became  his  father's  son, 
was  at  this  time  enthusiastically  devoted.  In  part  the  fear  of  the 
Catholics,  in  part  hatred  of  Maitland,  had  united  the  Kirk,  England, 
the  adventurous  Bothwell,  the  godly  Cowrie,  Atholl,  and  the  dark 
Master  of  Cray  against  the  king.  These  combined  forces  and 
strong  measures  caused  Huntly,  Angus,  and  Errol  to  approach  the 
king.  They  desired  to  stand  trial  as  to  their  conduct  in  the  matter 
of  the  Spanish  Blanks  (October  9).^^  They  met  James,  and  knelt 
to  him,  between  Soutra  and  Fala.^^  If  guilty,  they  would  suffer ; 
if  acquitted,  would  satisfy  the  Kirk  or  go  abroad.  They  were  only 
accused  (as  regards  the  purpose  of  their  signatures  to  the  blank 
sheets  of  paper)  by  one  witness,  Ceorge  Ker,  under  the  boot. 
They  explained  that  the  matter  which  Father  Creighton  was  to 
have  inserted  above  their  signatures  only  concerned  money  owed 
to  them  by  foreign  princes  for  the  subsistence  of  the  Jesuits  whom 


JAMES    PREVENTS   A   BATTLE    ROYAL.  38 1 

they  confessed  to  having  harboured.  So  Angus  and  Errol  declared. 
Huntly's  signature,  he  said,  referred  to  the  necessity  of  allowing  his 
uncle,  Father  Gordon,  to  leave  the  country ;  and  he  had  Father 
Gordon's  attested  statement  that  his  blanks  bore  no  other  sense. 
George  Ker,  under  torture,  had  declared  that  the  blanks  were  to 
be  filled  up  with  the  conditions  on  which  Philip  of  Spain  would 
invade  Scotland,  and  Fintry  appears  to  have  corroborated.-^  James 
gave  to  Elizabeth  the  account  of  the  blanks  put  forward  by  Angus, 
Atholl,  and  Errol  (December  7).-*  This  did  not  satisfy  her.  Yet, 
as  late  as  October  11,  Angus,  Huntly,  and  Errol  wrote  to  her 
thanking  her  for  "  her  gracious  acceptance  of  their  suits,"  and 
begging  her  to  "continue  her  princely  favour." 

So  far  the  proposals  of  the  earls  had  an  appearance  of  candour. 
They  would  stand  trial,  as  Bothwell  had  recently  done.  But, 
according  to  the  custom  of  Scotland,  trial  in  such  affairs  was  a 
mere  trial  of  forces.  Knox,  Murray,  Lethington,  and  Bothwell,  we 
know,  when  engaged  in  such  circumstances,  appeared  attended  by 
large  levies  of  armed  supporters,  and  justice  was  overawed.  If  the 
earls  were  tried  at  Perth,  as  was  their  wish,  they  would  be  backed 
by  all  the  Hays,  Gordons,  and  perhaps  Douglases,  who  could 
mount  a  horse  and  wield  a  spear.  By  October  18  they  had 
mustered  their  men.'"^^  James  told  the  Protestants  that  he  would 
be  answerable  for  order  on  the  day  of  law  :  "  such  as  came  un- 
desired  should  not  be  welcome."  -^  The  preachers,  however,  sum- 
moned their  own  supporters,  "  bodin  in  feare  of  warre " — that  is, 
fully  armed.  All  were  to  meet  at  Perth  on  October  24.  The  fiery 
cross  (metaphorically  speaking,  for  the  actual  symbol  is  idolatrous) 
was  sent  round  to  all  the  kirks.  A  Committee  of  Kirk  Safety, 
twelve  preachers,  sat  at  Edinburgh.  James  refused  to  acknowledge 
conventions  held  without  his  orders.  The  assemblage  of  such 
armed  bodies  of  partisans  was  one  of  his  main  grievances  against 
the  Kirk.  The  earls'  forces  were  meeting  at  Perth,  where  Atholl 
and  young  Gowrie,  a  true  chip  of  the  old  Ruthven  block,  were 
inclined  to  keep  them  out.  There  was  every  prospect  of  a  battle 
royal  at  Perth,  which  would  have  been  the  focus  of  all  feuds  and  an 
Armageddon  of  the  Kirk.  Humes  would  have  met  Hepburns ; 
Kers,  Hays,  Gordons,  Forbeses,  Stewarts,  Grahams,  Ruthvens, 
Campbells,  Mackintoshes,  with  burgesses  and  lairds  under  Andrew 
Melville,  would  have  been  let  loose  at  each  other's  throats.  We 
may  almost  regret  that  James,  as  it  were,  threw  down  his  baton  and 


382        THE   GODLY   PLOT   TO   TRAP   THE   KING   (1593). 

cleared  the  lists.  In  the  same  way  the  Regent  Murray  had  deferred 
the  trial  of  Lethington  when  the  forces  were  gathered  at  Edinburgh 
for  the  fray.  The  king  forbade  the  trial.  He  may  have  heard  of  a 
plot  to  kidnap  him,  described  by  Carey  to  Cecil.^''  The  godly  of 
Edinburgh,  armed  with  muskets  and  pretending  to  act  as  a  Royal 
Guard,  were  to  hand  James  over  to  Bothwell,  who  acted  with  "the 
Kirk,  barons,  and  boroughs."  The  Catholic  earls,  unattended  but 
unmolested,  must  therefore  wait  at  Perth,  and  be  examined  later 
before  a  commission  of  nobles,  burghs,  and  the  Kirk.  The 
preachers  had  demanded  their  imprisonment,  "according  to  the 
lovable  laws  of  Scotland."  But  who  was  to  imprison  them  ?  The 
attempt  would  only  have  entailed  the  battle  royal,  which  was  not 
to  be. 

Meanwhile  (October  22)  the  Catholic  earls,  through  Archibald 
Douglas,  were  still  in  the  treaty  with  Elizabeth,  and  had  written  a 
letter  of  thanks  to  her.^  Our  old  friend,  Lesley,  Bishop  of  Ross, 
had  suggested  that  religious  tolerance  should  be  proposed  in  the 
Scottish  Parliament,  so  Archibald  Douglas  writes;  but  (October  29) 
Elizabeth  was  threatening  James  for  his  tardiness  in  punishing  the 
earls, — she  had  declined  to  intercede  for  them,  and  was  working 
through  Locke  on  Atholl,  Bothwell,  and  Gowrie.  Meanwhile 
James  "  drove  time,"  or  procrastinated,  and  assemblages  of  partisans 
in  Edinburgh  during  the  convention  appointed  for  November  12 
were  forbidden.  The  meeting  was  scantily  attended,  the  ministers 
were  not  encouraged. 

On  November  26  a  compromise  as  to  the  Catholic  earls  was 
attempted,  and  an  "  Act  of  Abolition "  was  promulgated.  By 
February  i,  1594,  all  subjects  were  to  profess  themselves  Presby- 
terians. Those  who  could  not  do  so  "  in  conscience  "  (a  dangerous 
term,  the  thin  end  of  the  wedge)  were  to  depart  abroad,  retaining 
their  estates,  and  were  not  to  be  outlawed.  The  story  of  the 
Spanish  Blanks  was  to  be  dropped,  unless  the  accused  relapsed 
into  treasonable  dealings  abroad.  The  Catholics  were  to  have 
preachers  planted  in  their  households  to  convert  them,  and  were  to 
send  away  the  Jesuits,  under  heavy  pecuniary  guarantees.  Accept- 
ance of  the  arrangement  must  be  made  before  January  i,  1594. 
The  preachers  denounced  this  sinful  attempt.  What !  were  idolaters 
to  be  allowed  to  worship  Baal  abroad  and  yet  retain  their  property  ? 
In  the  privileged  Canaan  of  Scotland  (December  6)  the  Maxwells 
and  Johnstones  had  a  great  clan   battle  on  Dryfe  sands,  and  Lord 


VAIN    ATTEMPT   AT   COMPROMISE    (1594)-  383 

Maxwell  was  slain.  From  the  pulpit  Bruce  threatened  James : 
"  his  reign  should  be  troublesome,  and  short,"  if  he  did  not  abolish 
his  Act  of  Abolition.-^ 

We  know  what  such  prophecies  meant :  they  had  a  way  of 
securing  their  own  fulfilment.  Elizabeth  wrote  an  angry  reply  to 
James's  letter  about  the  pleas  of  the  earls.  Had  he  not  per- 
mitted George  Ker,  their  messenger,  and  the  witness  against  them, 
to  escape  ?  James  had,  in  fact,  just  hanged  one  Smeatoun  through 
whose  aid  the  escape  was  effected.  Elizabeth  now  sent  Lord 
Zouche  to  Edinburgh  (January  15,  1594).  and  Zouche  instantly 
began  to  intrigue  with  Bothwell's  ally,  the  Master  of  Gray.  Zouche's 
purpose  appears  to  have  been  to  unite  the  Northern  conspirators, 
Cowrie,  Atholl,  the  Masters  of  Gray  and  of  Montrose,  with  Ochil- 
tree, Bothwell,  the  Johnstones,  fresh  from  victory  over  the  Catholic 
Maxwells,  and  with  the  Kirk.  This  powerful  combination  would 
seize  the  king  as  usual,  oust  Maitland  and  Home,  drive  the 
Catholic  earls  to  ruin,  and  avenge  the  bonny  Earl.  The  scruples 
or  the  avarice  of  Elizabeth  stifled  the  plot.^*^  Meanwhile  she  would 
not  incite  such  proceedings,  but  would  protect  the  enterprisers. 
Yet  (January  4,  1594)  she  had  written  to  deny  that  Bothwell 
was  harboured  in  England  by  her  permission. 

The  Act  of  Abolition,  so  odious  to  the  godly,  was  now  with- 
drawn ;  the  Catholic  earls  had  declined  the  terms,  on  the  plea  of 
being  unable  to  find  sureties.  While  Elizabeth's  envoy,  Zouche,  was 
arranging  a  civil  war  on  a  great  scale  for  Scotland,  in  which  the 
Stewarts  and  Ruthvens,  under  Atholl  and  Gowrie,  should  combine 
with  the  sanguinary  Johnstones  of  the  Western  Border,  and  Both- 
well,  Ochiltree,  and  Montrose,  to  attack  Home,  Maitland,  and  the 
Catholics,  Prince  Henry  was  born  at  Stirling  (February  19,  1594). 
The  event  was  welcome  to  loyalists,  and,  to  use  a  phrase  current 
at  that  period,  it  "  was  nuts  "  to  the  Brethren.  They  had  long  felt 
it  as  a  heavy  cross  that  there  was  nobody  except  James  to  kidnap, 
— no  feasible  successor  who  could  be  set  up  against  him.  But  now 
there  was  the  baby,  who  might  be  captured  and  used  to  James's 
prejudice,  like  the  Prince  against  James  III.,  and  James  himself, 
as  an  infant,  against  his  mother.  The  proposal  was  at  once  made 
to  the  English  envoys  of  Elizabeth,  but  Elizabeth  discouraged  it  in 
a  letter  from  Robert  Cecil  to  Locke,  her  agent  with  the  godly 
(March  4).^^  Zouche  was  told  that  he  had  shown  irop  de  zele. 
Locke  was  warned  not   to  carry  any  compromising  papers  about 


384  PRINCE   HENRY   BORN,   AND   THREATENED. 

him.  "  The  proposal  to  follow  the  king  into  the  Castle  of  Stirling  " 
(where  the  royal  infant  was  in  the  charge  of  Mar),  "  and  to  besiege 
the  castle,  makes  her  majesty  a  little  careful  to  prevent  so  dishon- 
ourable and  so  unjustifiable  a  course,  mean  they  ever  so  duti- 
fully."^^ "They"  are  probably  the  AthoU  and  Gowrie  gang,  as 
Stirling  was  well  within  their  reach.  Elizabeth,  in  fact,  would  not 
part  with  her  money.^^ 

It  had,  however,  been  arranged  that  Bothwell  should  muster 
men,  English  and  Scots,  and  invade  the  country  on  two  pretexts. 
"  The  ane  was,  with  help  of  the  kinsmen  and  ministrie,  to  banish 
the  Catholic  lords  from  the  realm  of  Scotland."  The  other  pretext 
was  to  avenge  the  bonny  Earl.  The  author  of  '  The  Historic  of 
King  James  the  Sext '  (John  Colville,  as  is  supposed)  acknowledges 
that  England  was  aiding  Bothwell,  and  that  James  arrested  one 
of  Zouche's  suite,  who,  by  that  ambassador's  command,  had  dealt 
with  Bothwell.  To  check  his  advance,  Home,  Cessford,  and  Buc- 
cleuch  were  stationed  at  Kelso,  and  a  general  levy  was  proclaimed. 

The  preachers,  in  daily  sermons,  did  what  they  could  to  hamper 
the  king  in  his  peril  by  preaching  against  him,  and  prophesying 
evil.  When  he  asked  how  he  could  leave  Edinburgh  defenceless 
by  marching  against  the  Northern  Catholics,  they  offered  to  pray 
for  him !  For  some  reason  Kelso  was  evacuated  by  Buccleuch, 
and  occupied  by  Bothwell  on  April  i.  Next  day  he  reached 
Dalkeith,  and  was  in  Leith  on  the  3rd  of  April.  To  conciliate 
the  preachers,  James  promised,  in  church,  to  march  against  Huntly 
when  he  had  settled  Bothwell.  A  few  nobles,  and  the  town,  a 
disorderly  array,  then  went  out  against  that  hero,  who  moved 
southward,  slowly  and  in  good  order,  lest  his  line  of  retreat  should 
be  cut.  The  royal  levies  thought  that  he  had  fled,  but  their 
patrols  were  driven  in  when  they  attempted  to  occupy  a  hill  near 
Woolmet :  Bothwell  then  charged,  and  drove  the  Royal  Guard  in 
rout,  the  infantry  flying  to  Craigmillar.  Within  half  a  mile  of 
James's  position  on  the  Borough  Moor  Bothwell's  trumpets  sounded 
the  retreat,  and  he  lay  that  night  at  Dalkeith.  Probably  he  could 
have  entered  Edinburgh,  but  the  castle  he  could  not  have  taken, 
and  there  w-as  no  sign  of  a  popular  rising  in  his  favour.  He 
certainly  bore  off  the  honours  of  the  day,  with  many  prisoners, 
whom  he  released.  He  issued  proclamations  gratifying  to  the 
godly,  and  awaited  another  opportunity.^* 

John   Colville  at  once  (April  6)  wrote   to   Cecil,   teUing  "  how 


BOTHWELL'S    raid.      GOWRIE   retires   to   PADUA.      385 

courageously  and  reverently "  Bothwell  and  Ochiltree  had  be- 
haved. They  did  not  press  their  victory,  out  of  respect  to  James's 
person.  He  makes  it  pretty  clear  that  Bothwell  was  disappointed 
of  the  aid  of  the  Atholl-Gowrie  contingent.  "They  have  been 
tardy  and  slothful  who  have  promised " ;  he  thinks  that  perhaps 
the  "  letters  of  advertisement "  to  them  were  intercepted.  Carey 
writes  that  Atholl  was  expected  with  2000  men.  Colville  puts 
himself  at  Elizabeth's  disposal  "  as  her  born  subject."  ^^  There 
is  an  undated  address  of  Gowrie,  Bothwell,  Atholl,  Ochiltree, 
and  Murray  to  "  the  Reverend  Pastors  of  the  Kirk  presently 
assembled  at  Dunbar,"  to  announce  their  rising  in  arms  against  the 
Spanish  faction,  and  requesting  the  preachers  to  take  record  of 
their  proceedings.^''  It  is  even  said,  in  '  The  Chronicles  of  the 
Families  of  Atholl  and  TuUibardine '  (i.  51),  that  Atholl  was  pres- 
ent at  the  Raid  of  Leith  (April  3)  with  Bothwell.  He  was  de- 
nounced rebel  (April  26)  for  not  appearing  to  answer  concerning 
his  dealings  with  Bothwell. ^'^  Hunsdon,  who  knew  about  the  plot, 
could  not  learn  that  Atholl  "  or  any  other  of  his  confederates  "  had 
appeared  in  arms  (April  7).^^  From  a  letter  of  John  Colville  to 
Locke  (April  28)  it  appears  that  Atholl  and  his  party  deemed  that 
their  success  and  Bothwell's  was  impossible,  if  James  really  meant 
(as  he  had  promised)  to  "  pursue  the  papists."  Cecil  had  advised 
the  AthoU-Bothwell  party  to  await  events,  and  they  would  not  act 
violently  "unless  Atholl  be  pursued." ^'-^  On  May  3  Colville  com- 
plained that  both  England  and  the  Kirk  had  advised  delay,  to  them 
and  to  Atholl,  till  James's  intentions  as  to  the  Catholic  earls  were 
thoroughly  known.  Many  of  Bothwell's  horses  had  died ;  his 
party  meant  to  assemble  at  Hexham.^'' 

By  July  Atholl  had  been  appointed  one  of  James's  lieutenants  to 
pursue  Huntly  with  fire  and  sword,  and  by  August  his  brother-in- 
law,  Gowrie,  had  retired  to  Padua,  there  to  prosecute  his  studies. 
Thus  the  Atholl-Gowrie  branch  of  the  Bothwell-Ochiltree  confeder- 
acy was  broken  off:  its  existence  was  due  partly  to  Elizabeth  and 
Robert  Cecil,  partly  to  family  feud  against  Huntly,  partly  to  hatred 
of  Maitland,  and  in  part  to  Protestant  excitement.  Had  the 
Northern  lords  warmly  backed  Bothwell  at  the  Raid  of  Leith  he 
would  probably  have  triumphed.  The  Kirk  had  temporised,  but 
now  one  of  its  members  gave  James  some  trouble. 

There  was  a  preacher  at  Perth,  named  John  Ro^s,  who  dealt  very 
plainly  with  James.     He  said  that  there  were  many  traitors,  but  the 

VOL.    II.  2  B 


386  A   MENACING    PREACHER. 

king  was  the  chief.  "We  never  got  good  of  the  Guisian  blood,  for 
Queen  Mary,  his  mother,  was  an  open  oppressor  of  the  saints  of 
God."  When  examined  on  this  historical  statement,  he  admitted 
that  he  remembered  no  persecutions  by  Queen  Mary ;  doubtless  he 
had  thought  it  a  safe  remark  to  make,  on  general  principles.  James 
was  "a  reprobate  king,"  and  (which  was  true)  "a  dissembling  hypo- 
crite." How  the  ministers  looked  on  Ross's  performance  is  not 
very  clear.  The  author  of  '  The  Historic  of  King  James  the  Sext ' 
says  that  Ross  was  examined  before  certain  select  ministers  and  the 
king's  commissioners.  "The  whole  number  of  the  Assembly" 
(including  the  king's  commissioners?)  "approves  his  whole  doc- 
trine,"— as  to  his  threats  of  judgment  and  rebukes,  —  "except  in 
such  heads  as  seem  to  be  most  offensive." ^^  The  author  sympathises 
with  Ross.  But  he  has  only  made  an  excerpt  from  the  judgment  of 
the  Assembly  which  "  admonished "  Ross  because  the  occasion  of 
his  sermon  might  have  made  it  appear  that  the  Kirk  sided  with 
Bothwell ;  because  he  produced  a  sentence  against  the  House  of 
Guise,  de  fiituro,  and  because  he  was  harder  on  the  king  than  his 
own  years  and  experience  warranted.  Ross  was  therefore  warned  to 
speak  at  all  times  reverently  of  his  majesty.  This  was  the  decision 
of  the  General  Assembly,  and  Ross's  reluctant  and  guarded  apology 
was  the  result.  But  there  had  been  an  earlier  inquiry,  on  May  i, 
in  ]Mr  Robert  Bruce's  garden.  Here,  too,  Ross  was  admonished  ; 
"  some  of  the  brethren  thought  it  hard  to  say  that  the  king  should 
die  in  blood  for  sparing  the  shedding  of  blood,  yet  others  justified 
it,  that  'it  was  agreeable  to  the  Word  and  common  experience.'"'*- 
Apparently  James  was  not  satisfied,  for  '  The  Historic  of  King 
James  the  Sext'  adds  that  "as  he  could  not  be  avenged  on  Ross  by 
any  ecclesiastical  law  of  theirs,  or  municipal  law  of  his  own,"  he,  by 
advice  of  his  Council,  banished  Ross  from  the  realm.  This  Ross 
was  a  kinsman  of  Bothwell  on  the  Hepburn  side.  He  avowed  a 
desire  to  see  all  papists  hanged. 

If  we  consider  the  state  of  affairs  when  Ross  preached,  and 
the  dangers  from  the  AthoU-Bothwell  confederacy,  his  sermon  has 
much  the  air  of  a  provocative  to  assassination.  There  were  preachers 
who  justified  his  words  about  James  "dying  in  blood."  Though  the 
general  sense  of  the  Assembly  did  not  carry  it  to  the  length  of 
approving  of  Ross,  he  was  certainly  let  off  very  lightly,  without  even 
a  sentence  of  temporary  suspension.  Dr  M'Crie  states  the  matter 
thus  :  "  They  censured  a  preacher  of  the  name  of  Ross,  who  had 


KIRK   AND   KING.  387 

been  guilty  of  this  offence  " — that  is,  of  "  rash  or  irreverent  speeches 
against  the  king  or  his  Council." 

We  have  given  fuller  details,  and  dwelt  more  than  may  seem 
needful  on  these  performances  of  the  ministers  of  religion,  because 
they  show  the  nature  of  the  relations  between  Kirk  and  State, 
Were  they  endurable  relations  ?  Could  the  king  oblige  Mr  Ross  by 
hanging  perhaps  the  majority  of  his  subjects  ?  Had  he  more  power 
than  his  ancestors  possessed  in  the  way  of  forfeiting  some  of  his 
most  potent  and  least  accessible  nobles  ?  Was  it  feasible  for  him  to 
capture  men  who,  if  defeated,  had  the  roadless  retreats  of  the  High- 
lands behind  them ;  and  was  this  action  specially  possible  when 
Bothwell  was  threatening  the  capital  ?  It  was  in  such  circumstances 
that  the  clergy,  when  consulted,  so  mildly  "  admonished "  the 
preacher  of  a  sermon  which  was,  at  the  least,  bitterly  insulting,  and 
in  some  places  provocative  of  those  murders  of  kings  familiar  "  to 
the  Word  and  common  experience."  As  James's  reign  was  the 
prelude  to  a  terrible  civil  war,  provoked  in  great  part  by  royal 
retaliation  on  the  ministers,  it  appears  desirable  to  leave  no  doubt  as 
to  the  conduct,  the  ideals,  and  the  aspirations  of  the  Brethren.  It 
may  be  said,  on  their  side,  that  they  merely  represented  "  his 
majesty's  Opposition " ;  that,  in  the  absence  of  the  press  (which, 
however,  dealt  in  scurrilous  pamphlets  and  ballads),  the  pulpit  was 
the  only  place  where  freedom  of  speech  was  possible.  But  neither  a 
parliamentary  Opposition  nor  an  advanced  Liberal  press  pretends  to 
be  inspired  by  "  the  Spreit  of  God,"  and  finds  its  claims  accepted  by 
its  party.  This  pretence  the  preachers  did  make,  therefore  they  were 
dangerous  to  an  intolerable  degree,  and  the  perils  caused  by  their  pre- 
tensions were  the  direct  source  of  James's  equally  unjust  repressions. 

Turning  from  his  clergy  to  the  eternal  disturber  of  his  country, 
Elizabeth,  James  was  able  to  answer  her  letters  in  her  own  style. 
She  had  been  '  surprised,  wondered  whether  she  dreamed  or  not. 
James  also  asked  whether  there  were  visions  about.  Bothwell  had 
not  only  been  harboured  in  England,  but  had  received  English 
gold,  and  had  raised  English  soldiers,  proclaiming  his  rate  of  pay  at 
English  parish  churches.  He  had  appeared  at  Edinburgh,  and  had 
led  his  troops  back,  with  banners  displayed,  to  English  ground. 
Where  were  Elizabeth's  many  promises  not  to  receive  Bothwell  ? 
In  what  had  James  deserved  her  anger  ?  His  one  offence  was  that 
he  had  not  dealt  with  certain  of  his  own  subjects  in  such  form  and 
at  such  time  as  Elizabeth,  in  his  place,  might  have  deemed  fitting. 


388  HUNTLY    RECEIVES    FOREIGN    GOLD   (l595)- 

He  had  sent  Zouche  back  with  scant  courtesy,  reckoning  him  rather 
a  herald  with  a  challenge  than  a  friendly  ambassador.*^ 

The  General  Assembly  met  in  May,  made  their  usual  complaints, 
and  produced  a  pleasant  piece  of  folk-lore,  "  the  horrible  supersti- 
tion in  not  labouring  a  parcell  of  ground  dedicated  to  the  Devil, 
under  the  name  of  '  The  Goodman's  Croft.' "  We  may  conjecture 
that,  the  devil  being  addicted  to  sowing  tares,  it  was  thought  well 
to  leave  him  a  "pofifle  or  pendicle"  of  ground  where  he  could 
exercise  his  industry.  On  May  30  Parhament  forfeited  Angus, 
Errol,  and  Huntly,  but  Mr  Davidson  gave  "a  free  rebooke  of  all 
estats."  He  accused  the  preachers  of  greed,  and  of  "  winking  at 
the  profaning  of  the  Sabboth  day  "  (Sunday).  He  drew  a  parallel 
between  James  and  Charles  IX.  of  France,  the  man  of  the  Bar- 
tholomew Massacre  :  the  parallel  was  rather  in  favour  of  Charles. 
Charles  had  been  kind  to  Coligny  and  the  Huguenots,  k  nder  and 
more  promising  than  James  was  to  his  Protestant  subjects.  Yet 
Charles  had  massacred  the  Huguenots  on  a  large  scale,  and  there- 
fore it  was  well  to  keep  a  watchful  eye  on  James. *^ 

We  must  remember  that  the  Brethren  lived  in  constant  fear  of  a 
popish  plot  and  a  massacre.  This  appears  curious,  for  we  are  apt 
to  suppose  that  Edinburgh  was  entirely  Protestant.  Davidson  de- 
clared, however,  that  he  "  feared  the  multitude  of  Edinburgh  .  .  . 
more  than  I  fear  the  Court."  This  looks  as  if,  while  the  richer 
citizens  were  orthodox,  the  Reformation  had  not  really  touched 
Knox's  old  allies  in  mischief,  "  the  rascal  multitude." 

Though  forfeited,  the  Catholic  earls  were  passing  their  time  "in 
great  jollity,"  and  Huntly  continued  to  make  new  buildings  at 
Strathbogie.  Bothwell  was  in  poverty  in  Liddesdale,  and  already 
it  was  rumoured  that  he  would  join  the  Catholic  earls.  A  ship 
from  Spain  arrived  at  Aberdeen  (a  report  in  the  '  Spanish  State 
Papers '  says  that  it  contained  a  papal  subsidy  of  gold  for  the  king). 
The  barque  was  taken  by  the  citizens,  whom  Huntly  terrified  into 
surrendering  the  passengers  by  threats  of  fire  and  sword,  while  he 
seized  the  money  nieatit  for  his  sovereign  !  This  is  alleged  in  a 
strange  legendary  report  sent  by  an  anonymous  writer  to  Spain, 
but  the  document  is  full  of  wild  myths  and  romances  (July).'*^  * 

*  It  seems  to  me  very  improbable  that  the  money  "  from  Pope  Clement  VIII. 
to  the  King  "  was  really  destined  for  James  with  his  knowledi;e.  The  authority 
cited  by  Mr  Hume  Brown  (ii.  217,  note  2)  is  'Spanish  State  Papers,'  iv.  590. 
That  document  is  not  only  anonymous,  but  is  sheer  mythology'.      In  my  opinion 


CASUISTRY   OF   BOTHWELL.  389 

Meanwhile  James  prepared  for  war  in  the  North,  and  granted  a 
commission  of  lieutenancy  to  Argyll  and  Atholl,  who,  according  to 
Colville,  was  as  much  a  traitor  as  ever.*^  In  the  defect  of  a  police 
force,  or  of  a  regular  army,  it  was  the  practice,  when  one  noble  or 
chief  was  contumacious,  to  give  another  noble  "  letters  of  fire  and 
sword "  against  him,  and  Huntly  is  said  to  have  had  some  such 
commission  against  the  bonny  Earl  Moray.  The  preachers  and 
burgesses  of  Edinburgh  were  now  asked  to  raise  "  waged  men  "  for 
the  Northern  raid,  which  they  did  with  some  reluctance.  War 
was  delayed  till  the  infant  prince  had  been  baptised  at  Stirling 
(August  30),  where  Sussex  represented  Elizabeth.  The  festivities 
included  the  usual  fantastic  pageantries,  and  James  vexed  "good 
men  "  by  wearing  his  French  order  of  the  Sai7it  Esprit. 

James  and  Elizabeth  were  now  on  the  best  terms.  Bothwell  was 
bidden  to  leave  England.  On  July  30  he  had  let  Cecil  know, 
through  Colville,  that  the  Catholic  lords  had  been  soliciting  him. 
They  offered  25,000  crowns  if  he  would  come  over  to  them,  and 
bring  the  AthoU-Gowrie  party  with  him,  and  abandon  Colville. 
He  waited  to  know  Elizabeth's  mind  :  as  for  the  money  (Spanish, 
no  doubt),  if  he  did  not  take  it,  Home  would.  He  proposed,  if 
Elizabeth  agreed,  that  he  should  accept  the  25,000,  and  then  use  it 
"  for  pursuit  of  the  said  papists "  who  gave  it,  while  Elizabeth 
might  pay  back  the  papists.  Bothwell  wished  Colville  to  put  this 
remarkable  proposal  to  Cecil  as  an  abstract  question  in  casuistry, 
"  an  A  B  case "  of  conscience  :  "  May  A,  to  whom  B  (a  papist) 
offers  money  for  his  alliance,  take  the  money  and  use  it  against 
B  ? "  Colville  asked  Cecil  to  answer  in  the  abstract  form,  that 
Bothwell  might  think  Colville  had  so  stated  it.  Colville  added  that 
James  rather  thought  Prince  Henry  to  be  the  son  of  one  of  his 
courtiers,  probably  of  Lennox.  A  Darnley  and  Mary  quarrel,  he 
said,  was  at  hand. 

This  Colville,  at  whose  wedding  John   Knox  was  present,  is  a 

Father  Gordon,  Huntly's  uncle,  had  persuaded  himself  that  he  might  persuade 
the  Pope  that  James,  if  supplied  with  gold,  would  be  converted,  and  later,  per- 
suaded himself  that  Huntly  was  a  worthy  recipient  of  the  ducats.  Major  Martin 
Hume's  'Treason  and  Plot'  (1901)  may  be  recommended  to  readers  curious  in 
these  intrigues.  I  am  not  as  convinced  as  Major  Hume  that  James  was  deeply 
concerned  in  them;  and,  if  he  was,  he  only  sought  preservation  from  the  dis- 
graceful intrigues  of  Elizabeth,  and  of  the  factions  whom  she  suborned  in  Scotland. 
The  King,  naturally,  wished  to  protect  his  powerful  Catholic  subjects  from  per- 
secution, and  to  escape  from  Elizabeth's  spadassins,  Bothwell  and  his  adherents. 
He  also  needed  to  know  what  his  Catholic  earls  really  intended. 


390  COLVILLE   DESERTS   BOTHWELL. 

fairly  representative  scoundrel  of  the  period  :  his  later  fortunes  were 
such  as  he  deserved,  but  the  interesting  point  is  the  use  of  such 
abominable  tools  by  England.'*"  In  September  Colville  had  to 
report  that  "  unhappy  Bothwell "  was  not  running  a  straight  course 
with  Elizabeth,  but  was  off  to  meet  Huntly.  This  deeply  grieved  a 
professor  so  earnest  as  Colville,  who  could  only  hope  that  "the 
Lord  would  send  light  out  of  darkness."  So  sincere  a  Protestant 
as  Colville  could  no  longer  be  a  partner  with  one  who  had  joined 
himself  unto  idols.  He  went  to  Edinburgh  on  September  1 2  and 
wrote  a  letter  of  farewell  to  his  old  master.  The  Earl  had  openly 
said  that  Colville  meant  to  betray  him  (which  he  probably  did 
intend),  and  Colville  was  hurt.  But  he  had  got  Bothwell  cleared 
of  "  the  odious  imputation  of  witchcraft,"  he  said  :  and  who  but  he 
had  given  tone  to  Bothwell's  enterprises  in  general  ?  Colville  had 
often  hazarded  his  body  for  this  ungrateful  patrician,  "  but  God  only 
knows  how  far  I  hazarded  my  conscience  in  making  black  white 
and  darkness  light  for  your  sake."  That  was  what  Colville  felt  most 
bitterly.  He  therefore  proposed  to  seek  James's  pardon,  "  spending 
the  rest  of  my  days  quietly  in  the  fear  of  that  gracious  and  omnipo- 
tent Lord,"  with  other  canting  phrases.^^  To  James  next  did  Col- 
ville write,  likening  himself  to  a  dead  dog,  and  addressing  the  king 
as  "  Oh,  Glory  of  Albion  !  "  He  quoted  Ovid  and  the  Bible,  and 
rather  impiously  likened  James  to  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  He 
simply  wallowed  in  remorse  and  abject  apology.**^  He  reported  to 
Cecil  the  shameful  backsliding  of  Bothwell.  But  a  few  months  ago, 
to  quote  Moysie,  "all  the  ministry  favoured  the  Erie  Bothwell, 
thinking  him  most  meit  to  be  chiftaine  for  the  professoriris,"  and 
now  he  had  joined  the  idolaters.^*^ 

We  know  what  Bothwell  had  been  doing.  He  had  met  the 
Catholic  lords  in  Angus  ;  his  messenger,  one  Orme,  was  caught, 
and  a  proclamation  of  September  30  disclosed  his  iniquitous  inten- 
tions. He  was  to  make  a  raid  on  Holyrood,  seize  James,  shut  him 
up  in  the  Keep  of  Blackness,  raise  the  Borderers,  and  capture  the 
Northern  castles.  ^^  Home,  Cessford,  and  Buccleuch  had  taken  his 
lands,  and  would  make  the  Border  too  hot  to  hold  him.*     Colville 

*  The  man  who  had  led  Bothwell  to  this  course  was  "  Mr  Thomas  Cranstoun." 
A  person  called  "Mr  Thomas  Cranstoun"  came  home  with  Gowrie  from  France 
in  1600,  and  was  hanged  for  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy  of  that  year.  He,  however, 
"  lest  susjiicion  be  taken  from  his  name,"  averred  that  he  had  been  abroad  since 
15S9.     The  Cranstouns  at  this  time  were  usually  of  the  Kirk  party. 


I 


BOTHWELL   TURNS   CATHOLIC.  39I 

wrote  thus  on  September  16.  On  August  20,  three  weeks  earlier, 
he  had  informed  Cecil  that  Bothwell  was  otfering  Lennox  1000 
crowns  to  pay  men  to  seize  James,  and  that  Lennox  had  induced 
Mar  to  join  the  plot.  The  other  plan  was  to  allure  James  away 
from  his  retinue,  "when  he  hunts  his  bucks  in  Falkland."  "The 
captain  of  that  house  has  promised  us,  any  morning  we  please,  to 
draw  him  out  with  the  huntsmen  only  to  any  part  of  the  wood  we 
please  to  hide  ourselves  into."^-  This  plot  is  much  akin  to  that  of 
the  Cowrie  Conspiracy  (1600),  by  which  James  was  to  have  been 
allured  away  from  the  chase  in  the  woods  of  Falkland.  Probably 
Lennox,  an  honourable  man  on  the  whole,  declined  to  take  part  in 
these  proceedings.  We  have  to  note,  however,  that  Robert  Cecil 
was  hardened  in  such  iniquities.  It  was  when  he  failed  with  the 
Protestant  or  Indifferent  Lennox  that  Bothwell  threw  himself  into 
the  arms  of  idolaters,  to  the  consternation  of  the  godly  Colville,  and 
with  them  he  was  still  hunting  the  king.  As  Bothwell  was  now  a 
lost  sheep,  Elizabeth  abandoned  him,  and  Colville  was  bidden  to 
seek  a  pardon  from  James.  This  he  obtained :  we  have  seen  in 
what  terms  he  asked  for  it  (September  30),  and  he  assures  Cecil 
that  now  he  will  be  a  more  useful  spy  than  ever !  He  did  not  say 
what  he  had  offered  "  for  his  peace,"  but  Ochiltree  had  offered  to 
catch  Angus.  What  Mr  Colville  offered  will  presently  appear :  it 
was  the  blood  of  Bothwell's  brother. ^^ 

As  for  Bothwell,  he  tried  to  propitiate  the  Kirk  ;  he  explained 
that  though  now  leagued  with  papists,  it  was  only  in  his  temporal 
interests. ^^  On  October  3  the  forces  of  Argyll,  going  in  advance  of 
the  royal  army,  encountered  those  of  Huntly  at  Glenrinnes,  in  Glen- 
avon.  Argyll,  a  lad  of  nineteen,  had  the  slaying  of  the  Bonny  Earl 
to  avenge.  His  force  of  6000  men  was,  in  part,  a  light  armed 
Highland  levy,  and  he  had  neither  cavalry  nor  guns.  "  The  High- 
land men  are  naked  men,"  says  a  much  later  ballad  :  they  were  no 
better  equipped  with  defensive  armour  now  than  at  Harlaw  or 
Killiecrankie.  Mackintosh  was  with  Argyll,  and  all  Clan  Gilzean. 
That  day  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  Macleans  "  undoubtedly  played 
the  man,"  says  a  letter  quoted  by  Calderwood.  The  Macleans  were 
the  Spartans  of  the  North ;  down  to  Drummossie  day  it  was  their 
motto  and  practice  never  to  turn  their  backs,  but  conquer,  or  die 
with  their  faces  to  the  foe.  Such  was  their  ancient  and  honourable 
tradition,  which  many  a  time  left  them  a  weakened  people.  Clan 
Chattan  was  divided ;    the  Macphersons  held   Ruthven   Castle  for 


^g2  BATTLE   OF   GLENRINNES. 

Huntly ;  Clan  GilHvray  and  the  Mackintoshes  were  with  Argyll. 
Huntly,  like  Mar  at  Harlaw,  had  a  force  far  inferior  in  numbers,  but 
well  armed,  well  mounted,  and  provided  with  six  guns — weapons  of 
which  the  Celts  stood  in  some  awe,  as  being  unfamiliar.  Argyll, 
wisely,  was  anxious  to  await  the  arrival  of  the  more  regular  forces, 
cavalry,  and  artillery  of  James.  Huntly,  however,  sent  out  a  cavalry 
patrol,  which  cut  up  the  skirmishers  of  Argyll  and  reconnoitred  the 
position  of  his  main  body.  With  Argyll  naturally  was  the  first  cadet 
of  his  house,  Lochnell.  He,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  a  partner 
of  Huntly  in  "  the  great  band "  for  the  murder  of  Campbell  of 
Calder,  of  the  bonny  Earl  of  Moray,  and  of  Argyll  himself.  Moray 
and  Calder  had  been  slain  in  February  1592.  Now  was  Lochnell's 
chance  to  betray  Argyll  to  the  same  fate. 

Lochnell,  if  we  may  believe  a  letter  cited  by  Calderwood,  had 
expected  to  lead  the  van.  He  therefore  arranged  with  Huntly  that 
he  should  direct  his  whole  artillery  on  the  yellow  flag  of  the  clan, 
under  which  Argyll  himself  would  be  stationed.  Lochnell  would 
then  take  to  flight,  which  would  lead  to  the  flight  of  his  vanguard, 
and  the  ruin,  probably  the  death,  of  Argyll.  But  Argyll,  instead  of 
letting  Lochnell  lead  the  vanguard,  kept  him  beside  his  own  person, 
under  the  yellow  standard,  which  had  formed  no  part  of  his  ingeni- 
ous scheme.  Either  by  the  artillery-fire,  or  in  Huntly's  charge  on 
the  yellow  standard,  Lochnell  was  slain,  and  a  great  number  of  the 
Campbells  turned  and  fled ;  but  the  main  body  occupied  a  hill-top, 
beneath  which  lay  a  morass,  while  the  sun  blazed  in  the  eyes  of 
Huntly's  and  Errol's  cavalry.  Errol  turned  to  avoid  the  marsh  and 
outflank  the  enemy,  but  Auchendown,  making  a  frontal  attack,  saw 
his  men  mowed  down  by  the  arrows  and  musket- balls  of  Clan 
Gilzean,  covered  as  they  were  by  a  coppice.  Nevertheless  Gordon 
of  Auchendown  pressed  on,  charging  up-hill ;  but  he  was  shot,  and 
the  Celts  cut  off  his  head.  Huntly's  force  was  now  enclosed 
between  the  Macleans  and  the  Campbells,  but  he  led  a  desperate 
charge  to  extricate  his  vanguard.  Now  Maclean,  plying  a  Danish 
battle-axe  and  wearing  heavy  armour,  cut  his  way  to  Huntly's 
standard,  which  he  captured,  slaying  the  man  who  bore  it.  Errol 
was  wounded  by  a  bullet  and  an  arrow,  Gordon  of  Gight  was  slain, 
Huntly  was  unhorsed,  but  remounted,  and  led  a  fresh  charge.  On 
this  the  Campbells  who  had  stood  fled,  while  Argyll  wept  for  the 
dishonour  of  his  name.  The  victory,  after  heavy  loss,  remained 
with  Huntly :  the  Macleans  retired  in  good  order,  but  Argyll's  camp 


THE    KING   SCATTERS   THE   REBELS.  393 

fell  into  the  enemy's  hands.  In  a  report  to  Spain  Huntly  has  only 
thirty-seven  men,  who  kill  500  of  Argyll's  force,  losing  only  one  man 
wounded — a  miracle.-'' 

It  was  on  the  day  after  this  gallantly  fought  affair  that  James 
rode  out  of  Edinburgh,  Morton  being  left  in  command  of  the  town. 
The  Melvilles,  by  James's  desire,  accompanied  him,  "  because  the 
people  were  jealous  of  him."  Nor  was  James  Melville  satisfied. 
Huntly's  force,  sorely  shaken  by  their  losses  at  Glenrinnes,  dis- 
persed, and '  James  occupied  Aberdeen.  But  money  was  needed 
for  the  forces,  and  James  Melville  was  sent  to  Edinburgh  to  procure 
supplies.  He  was  to  announce  that  James  would  burn  the  castles 
of  his  foes,  yet  "  moyen  was  maid "  that  they  should  be  spared. 
However,  the  arguments  of  Andrew  Melville  prevailed,  Strathbogie 
and  other  seats,  Errol's,  and  the  houses  of  some  Gordons  and 
Ogilvies,  were  demolished. ^^  This  was  not  enough  for  James 
Melville.  The  royal  raid  ended  for  lack  of  supplies,  and,  says 
Melville,  "  when  all  was  done,  little  sound  meaning  and  small  effect 
further  was  produced."  The  king  returned  to  Edinburgh,  Lennox 
remained  at  Aberdeen  in  command,  and  many  barons  and  chiefs, 
the  Earl  Marischal,  Lovat,  Grant,  Mackintosh,  and  others  came 
under  oaths  of  loyalty. 

Though  the  Catholic  earls  and  their  new  associate,  Bothwell, 
were  practically  broken,  the  state  of  the  country  and  of  political 
factions  was  purely  chaotic.  While  the  earls  were  gathering  head 
again,  and  it  was  found  necessary  to  reinforce  Lennox  in  the 
North,  Argyll  was  mustering  his  forces  anew  (December  12).^^ 
Smarting  from  the  shame  of  his  defeat  at  Glenrinnes,  he  .had 
discovered  the  whole  secret  of  the  great  band,  the  complicity  of 
Ardkinglas,  and  the  treachery  of  Lochnell,  which  fate  had  so 
strangely  avenged.  He  would  take  further  vengeance  himself  upon 
Huntly's  country  and  his  own  faithless  clansmen  and  allies.  In 
many  districts  there  was  "  much  blood  shed,  and  many  horrible 
murders  were  committed ;  the  son  slaying  the  father,  one  brother 
the  other,  and  brothers'  sons  killing  each  other,  thieves  spoiling  and 
oppressing,  and  men  daily  ravishing  "  (probably  abducting  is  meant) 
"women;  but  no  execution  of  justice,  either  by  the  king  or  the 
inferior  magistrates,"  says  Calderwood. 

It  was  not  possible  for  James  to  execute  justice,  if  he  had  been  so 
inclined,  for  want  of  force,  and  the  cause  of  want  of  force  was  want 
of  money.     At  any  time  Elizabeth  could  have  secured  a  peaceful 


394  ARGYLL   IMPRISONED   (1595). 

Scotland,  at  great  advantage  to  her  own  revenues,  by  a  subsidy  of 
some  ;^2o,ooo  annually.  But  she  preferred  to  pension  traitors, 
and  James,  having  done  her  work  in  the  North,  was  now  refused 
;/^2ooo  which  had  been  promised  to  him.  He  was  naturally 
annoyed,  and  sent  Colonel  Stewart  on  a  fruitless  search  for 
assistance  in  the  Low  Countries  (December  12).^^  In  her 
habitual  avarice  Elizabeth  fostered  the  many  troubles  of  Scot- 
land. Money  she  would  supply  to  James's  rebels :  to  himself 
she  grudged  or  denied  it,  thereby  doing  her  best  to  throw  him 
on  the  side  of  Spain,  and  to  cause  the  very  dangers  which  it  was 
essential  to  her  to  prevent.  Nevertheless  James  arrested  Argyll  in 
the  midst  of  his  enterprises  of  vengeance  and  spoliation,  warding 
him  for  a  time  in  Edinburgh  Castle.  Calderwood,  who  grumbles 
at  the  defect  of  justice,  also  grumbles  at  the  detention  of  Argyll  as 
a  mere  pretence  for  extorting  money. ^^  James  (January  29,  1595) 
summoned  a  convention  of  nobles  and  endeavoured  to  alleviate 
the  condition  of  the  people.  His  "waged  men"  had  disbanded 
for  want  of  pay,  and  he  was  almost  as  helpless  as  usual. '^'^  Atholl 
as  well  as  Argyll  was  "warded." 

Moved  by  the  king,  however,  the  preachers  at  last  agreed  to 
excommunicate  Bothwell  (February  18,  1595).  He  had  shown 
his  true  colours  by  leaguing  with  papists,  hoc  nocuit.  We  must 
not  regard  all  of  the  Kirk  as  official  allies  of  Bothwell.  James 
Melville  openly  denied  that  he  had  ever  dealt  wdth  him.  Others 
sympathised  with  him,  and  he  had  skill  in  flattering  the  Brethren. 
Regarding  him  as  a  "sanctified  plague,"  they  had  done  little  or 
nothing  to  check  his  popularity  or  impair  his  successes,  for  he 
used  the  pretext  of  avenging  the  Bonny  Earl,  and  of  earnest 
Protestantism,  The  noted  intriguer,  John  Colville,  the  agent  of 
the  exiled  earls  after  the  death  of  Gowrie,  now  betrayed  Bothwell's 
natural  brother,  Hercules  Stewart,  who  was  hanged  (February  i8).6i 
In  brief,  Bothwell's  meteor  course  was  run,  and  after  skulking  about 
the  country,  and  attempting  to  imitate  the  piratical  career  of  his 
uncle,  Queen  Mary's  Bothwell,  in  the  Orkneys,  he  fled  to  France. 
A  man  of  courage,  enterprise,  wit,  and  many  accomplishments,  he 
had  all  the  Hepburn  ambition,  with  all  the  charm  of  recklessness. 
His  ambition  was  boundless,  but  crossed  by  a  madcap  vein 
which  frustrated  his  desires.  From  the  queen  to  the  lowest  of  the 
people  he  was  popular,  and,  among  so  many  ruffians,  he  alone  had 
a  touch  of  what  is  genial,  sympathetic,  and  boyish.     He,  at  least, 


EXILE  OF   HUNTLY   AND   BOTHWELL   (1595).  395 

would  gladly  have  avenged  Queen  Mary,  donning  armour  as  the 
most  suitable  mourning.  From  the  Continent  he  kept  vexing  the 
king  with  fears  of  change,  and  before  August  1600  was  urging 
Philip  to  invade  Scotland. 

Huntly  still  lingered  in  the  North,  but  his  plans  were  ruined 
(March  25)  by  the  arrest  of  a  Jesuit,  Father  Morton,  who  had 
landed  at  Leith,  from  Spain.  He  brought  no  money,  but  rather 
rebukes  for  the  ill  use  to  which  previous  supplies  had  been  devoted. 
James  treated  Father  Morton  with  a  gentleness  which  Father 
Creighton  later  applauded.  Morton  gave  a  jewel,  representing 
the  crucifixion,  to  the  king  :  James  is  said  to  have  remarked  that, 
on  account  of  the  minute  scale  of  the  work,  he  could  not  kiss 
the  crucifix  without  kissing  the  thieves  and  the  soldiers.  It  is 
said  that  the  preachers  desired  to  have  Morton  tortured.  Calder- 
wood  does  not  mention  this  :  Father  Creighton  praises  the  king's 
humanity.^2  In  the  ruin  of  the  Catholic  cause,  Errol,  Huntly, 
and  his  uncle,  the  excellent  Father  Gordon,  now  took  ship  for  the 
Continent.  Probably  James  kept  on  terms  with  them,  and  their 
retreat  was  an  arranged  affair,  as  their  party  informed  the  Spanish 
Court. 

A  domestic  trouble  was  next  added  to  the  confusions  of  the  State. 
The  queen  had  for  long  been  the  enemy  of  Maitland  :  the  cause 
was  said  to  be  a  dispute  about  the  ownership  of  lands  at  Mus- 
selburgh, but  there  were  probably  other  causes  of  resentment. 
Maitland,  however,  had  lately  paid  court  to  the  queen,  and  had 
backed,  or  inspired,  her  wish  to  remove  the  child  prince  from 
the  governance  of  Mar,  whose  ancestor  had  kept  good  watch 
over  James  himself  when  a  child.  Allied  with  the  queen  and 
Maitland  were  Buccleuch  and  Cessford,  great  chiefs  of  the  reck- 
less border  spears.  They  had  expected  Bothwell's  lands,  and,  says 
Colville,  had  been  disappointed.^^  It  was  believed  that  they  enter- 
tained the  somewhat  conventional  design  of  kidnapping  the  little 
Duke  of  Rothesay  for  their  own  political  purposes  :  Maitland,  we 
know,  was  capable  of  anything ;  and  Cessford  and  Buccleuch  were 
disappointed  men.  The  murder  of  one  of  Mar's  men,  on  account 
of  a  love  affair,  led  to  a  great  demonstration  by  Mar,  and  it  was 
expected  that  Buccleuch  and  Cessford  would  give  him  a  meeting.*^ 
The  quarrel  about  the  prince  lasted  from  April  into  August,  James 
siding  with  Mar  and  opposing  Maitland.  The  queen  was  again 
about  to  be  a  mother,  and  was  in  a  fretful,  perhaps  hysterical,  frame 


396  DEATH   OF   MAITLAND. 

of  mind.  At  the  end  of  July  she  was  ill,  and  Nicholson,  the  English 
resident  at  Edinburgh,  tells  us  that  James  suspected  her  of  feigning 
a  malady,  and  of  merely  desiring  to  bring  him  to  her  from  Stirling 
for  some  evil  purpose.  Melville,  however,  found  that  the  queen's 
ladies  believed  her  to  be  really  ill,  and  James  hurried  from  StirUng. 
He  found  her  majesty  with  Buccleuch  and  Cessford  !  James  had 
his  room  carefully  guarded,  and  sent  for  Robert  Bruce  and  other 
preachers  as  advisers.  Meanwhile  the  queen  was  suspected  of  try- 
ing to  keep  James  by  her  that  he  might  be  kidnapped  in  the  usual 
way.  Buccleuch,  the  bauld  Buccleuch  of  the  Kinmont  WilHe 
ballad,  was  thought  to  favour  this  course. *^^  But  Maitland,  now 
nearing  his  end,  ill  and  old,  lost  nerve  :  James  rode  back  safely  : 
Mr  Galloway  admonished  the  queen  in  a  sermon,  and  the  royal 
pair  were  reconciled  ('x'^ugust  15).*^^ 

On  August  2  5  Maitland's  illness  was  serious :  Buccleuch  and 
Cessford  had  him  at  their  mercy,  they  knew  so  much  of  his 
designs :  and  his  malady  was  thought  to  be  diplomatic.  He  died 
on  October  3,  much  concerned,  and  with  good  cause,  about  his 
soul.  Calderwood  takes  rather  a  favourable  view  of  his  spiritual 
estate,  though  "  his  practices,  at  his  first  entry  to  Court,  were  very 
pernicious  and  offensive  to  the  godly  many  years  after.  .  .  .  He 
granted,  at  his  death,  that  he  had  greatly  offended  that  man  of  God, 
Mr  Knox,"  perhaps  on  the  subject  of  the  amusing  skit  on  Knox, 
Murray,  Wood,  and  other  brethren,  a  shaft  which  certainly  came 
out  of  the  quiver  of  the  witty  House  of  Lethington.  This  jest  does 
not  seem  so  much  matter  for  contrition  as  Maitland's  alleged  share 
in  Darnley's  death,  and  alleged  partnership  in  "  the  great  band  "  for 
the  murder  of  Calder,  Argyll,  and  the  Bonny  Earl.  What  his  latest 
design,  in  company  with  Buccleuch,  may  precisely  have  been  is  not 
certain,  but  doubtless  it  was  on  the  old  lines.  None  the  less,  and 
despite  his  confederacy  with  Huntly,  Maitland  had  been  a  Protest- 
ant, and  no  enemy  of  England.  James  is  said  not  to  have  regretted 
the  loss  of  his  old  adviser. 

Maitland  founded  the  House  of  Lauderdale,  which  later  gave 
Scotland  a  famous  statesman.  At  this  very  time  we  first  meet 
Archibald  Primrose,  an  intriguer  with  John  Colville  and  Elizabeth's 
Ministers.  Here  first  appears  in  affairs  the  ancestor  of  the  House  of 
Rosebery.  While  new  men  arose,  AthoU  died  (September  22),  By 
the  end  of  the  year  the  strife  between  Mar  and  Buccleuch  and  Cess- 
ford was  appeased,  and   Buccleuch  was  received  at   Court.      The 


THE    TROUBLES    WITH    MR    BLACK.  397 

Scottish  queen  later  threw  all  the  blame  oi'  the  quarrel  about  her 
child  on  the  dead  Maitland,  insisting  that  she  had  warned  James, 
and  preserved  him  from  an  attack  on  his  person.^*"  The  queen's 
biographer,  Miss  Strickland,  takes  a  less  favourable  view  of  her  con- 
duct. In  origin  the  affair  was  a  nursery  cabal  which  politicians  used 
for  their  own  purposes.  But  James  came  better  out  of  the  contest 
than  his  unfortunate  and  exiled  descendant,  James,  eighth  of  the 
name,  was  to  emerge  from  a  similar  affair  (1726).  Anne  was 
already  suspected,  we  learn,  of  idolatrous  tendencies,  fostered  prob- 
ably by  Lady  Huntly  and  others  of  her  intimates. 

The  autumn  had  been  notable  for  the  Irish  rising  of  Tyrone,  who 
was  to  have  been  backed  by  several  thousand  warriors  from  the  West 
Highlands  and  the  Isles.  Maclean  of  Duart,  who  wielded  the  battle- 
axe  at  Glenrinnes,  had  the  address  to  capture  large  numbers  of  the 
Highland  auxiliaries  under  Clanranald,  and  with  the  aid  of  Argyll 
relieved  England  from  a  considerable  danger.  He  found  it  much 
more  difficult  to  extract  from  the  avarice  of  Elizabeth  a  trifle  of 
2000  crowns  for  his  expenses.  An  incident  of  local  interest  was  a 
heroic  "  barring  out "  at  the  High  School  of  Edinburgh  in  Septem- 
ber. "  The  litde  boys  began  to  shoot  and  stab."  Docked  of  half 
their  holidays,  a  poor  fortnight,  the  boys  held  the  school,  the  old 
building  on  the  site  of  the  Blackfriars,  near  Kirk-o'-Field.  An 
impetuous  bailie,  Macmorran,  led  a  charge  against  the  doors  with  an 
improvised  battering-ram,  and  was  shot  by  William  Sinclair,  son  of 
the  Chancellor  of  Caithness.  The  main  interest  to  us  is  that  Sir 
Walter  Scott  as  a  boy  may  have  known  "the  bailie's  window," 
whence  the  shot  was  fired. 

In  August  of  the  year  there  had  been  trouble  with  a  preacher 
presently  to  become  more  notorious.  This  was  Mr  David  Black, 
of  St  Andrews.  He  was  accused  of  speaking  ill  of  Queen  Mary, 
and  an  effort  was  made  to  convict  him  before  a  mixed  and  informal 
commission.  Andrew  Melville  interfered  in  his  usual  masterful 
way,  but  James  Melville  smoothed  the  matter  over.  He  alleged 
at  St  Andrews,  in  a  sermon,  that  Mr  Black  "had  commended  his 
majesty's  mother  for  many  great  and  rare  gifts,  and  excellent 
virtues."  If  Black  did  this,  it  is  unfortunate  that  his  sermon  has 
not  been  preserved.  He  "  very  sparingly  and  soberly  had  touched 
the  truth  of  the  judgment  of  God  which  had  come  on  her  for 
resisting  the  wholesome  admonition  of  the  Word  of  God."  Every- 
thing   considered,    common    decency    should    have    warned    Black 


398  FINANCIAL   REFORM. 

against  raking  up  the  history  of  his  king's  mother,  or  of  any 
living  man's  mother,  and  the  Brethren  seem,  provisionally,  to 
have  come  into  this  opinion. "^^ 

The  ministers  were  still  very  sensitive  about  the  Catholic  earls. 
Their  wives  were  practically  left  in  possession  of  their  property : 
movements  of  Catholics,  involving  feuds,  were  common  in  the 
North,  and  a  new  Spanish  invasion  was  apprehended  in  Novem- 
ber. The  exiled  earls  were  in  the  same  position  as  the  Hamiltons 
and  the  Ruthven  raiders  had  been  when  banished  :  it  was  certain 
that  they  would  come  back  sooner  or  later. 

James  in  November  1595  was  playing  the  part  of  Protestant 
Hero,  and  ordering  a  universal  "  wapinschawing,"  or  review  of  the 
whole  armed  forces  of  the  country,  all  for  "  the  defence  of  the 
kingdom  against  the  detestable  conspiracy  against  Christ  and  his 
Evangel  presently  in  readiness."  ^^  The  wapinschaw,  when  it  did 
occur,   exhibited  a  mournful  array  of  "  Guse  Gibbies." 

The  death  of  Maitland  left  James  free  to  manifest  his  own 
powers  and  policy.  He  denounced  the  carrying  of  pistols :  he 
demanded  a  list  of  all  "  horners  "  (outlaws),  which  he  never  got : 
"he  will  let  them  know  that  he  will  be  obeyed  and  reverenced 
as  a  king,"  and  will  suffer  no  more  blood-feuds  to  run  their  san- 
guinar}'  course.'*^  He  might  as  well  have  tried,  like  Canute,  to 
make  the  waves  "reverence  and  obey"  him.  He  was  backed  by 
no  force  of  men  or  money.  A  generous  gift  of  a  purse  of  gold 
from  the  queen  on  New  Year's  Day  1596  much  astonished 
James.  Whence  came  that  rare  metal?  he  asked,  and  her  majesty 
praised  her  household  financiers,  Alexander  Seton,  the  President ; 
Lindsay,  Elphinstone,  and  Thomas  Hamilton.  James  resolved  to 
employ  them  in  Treasury  matters :  Seton  throve  to  be  the  great 
Chancellor,  Dunfermline ;  Elphinstone,  as  Balmerino,  had  a  re- 
markable career  of  favour,  with  a  mournful  end ;  and  Hamilton, 
popularly  styled  Tam  o'  the  Cowgate,  flourished  as  King's  Advo- 
cate, was  created  Lord  Binning,  then  Earl  of  Melrose,  and 
founded  the  existing  House  of  Haddington.  The  anecdote  of  the 
New  Year's  purse  of  gold  is  related  by  John  Colville.''^ 


NOTES.  399 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER    XIV. 

^  Border  Calendar,  i.  490  ;  August  15,  1593. 

2  Sir  James  Melville,  pp.  414-417;  Caldeiwood,  v.  256,  257;  Spottiswoode, 
ii.  433,  434  ;  Border  Calendar,  i.  48 1 -484. 

^  Border  Calendar,  i.  491.  Calderwood,  v.  257,  258. 

^  Spanish  Papers,  iv.  588,  613,  614.  ^  Border  Calendar,  i.  a^go  ei  seq. 

^  Border  Calendar,  i.  486-488.    An  account  of  the  trial. 

^  Border  Calendar,  i.  488,  489. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  259  ;  Border  Calendar,  i.  493. 

'^^  Calderwood,  v.  269.  11  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  363. 

^^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  634.  '^  Border  Calemiar,  i.  497,  498. 

'*  Calderwood,  v.  259-261  ;  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  635. 

'^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  383,  3S4.  ^^  Border  Calendar,  i.  502. 

^^  Forbes-Leith,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  p.  191. 

'^^  Letters  of  John  Colville,  pp.  258,  259;  Bannatyne  Club,  1858. 

^^  Moysie,  Memoirs,  p.  105.  -"  Spottiswoode,  ii.  437. 

-^  Bowes  to  Cecil,  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  636. 

^-  Calderwood,  v.  270  ;  Border  Calendar,  i.  506,  507. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  225.  -■*  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  430. 

25  Bowes  to  Cecil ;  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  637. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  273,  274.  ^  Border  Calendar,  i.  510.     October  31. 

^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  63S.  "^  Calderwood,  v.  289,  290. 

^^  Tytler,  ix.  146.  I  have  been  unable  to  fiind  the  letter,  quoted  by  Mr  Tyller 
at  the  Record  Office. 

^1  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  646.  ^'^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  646. 

•**  Cecil  to  Zouche,  March  12,  T  orpe,  Calendar,  ii.  647. 

^*  Historic  of  King  James  the  Sext,  pp.  306-314. 

^^  Letters  ol  John  Colville,  pp.  259,  260  ;  Border  Calendar,  i.  525-52S. 

^^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  650;   Historie  of  King  James  the  Sext,  pp.  312-314. 

•"'  Bowes  to  Burghley,  April  30,  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  650. 

^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  504. 

33  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  517,  518.  *'  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  523,  524. 

*^  Historie  of  King  James  the  Sext,  pp.  324,  325. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  299,  321,  323. 

■**  Tytler,  ix.  151-154,  citing  a  Warrender  MS.  ;  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  509, 
510,  April  13,  1594. 

**  Calderwood,  v.  337,  338. 

*^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  v.  654,  655  ;  Spanish  State  Papers,  iv.  590. 

**  Letters  of  John  Colville,  p.  106. 

*7  Colville  to  Cecil,  July  30,  Letters  of  John  Colville,  pp.  11 3- 11 5. 

*^  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  629,  630.  '"*  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  630632. 

50  Moysie,  Memoirs,  p.  104.  ^^  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  173. 

82  Hatfield  Calendar,  iv.  5S3. 

''  John  Colville's  Letters,  pp.  123-131. 

®*  Miss  Warrender's  Illustrations  of  Scottish  History,  pp.  45-51.  Both  well  to 
the  ministers. 

"  Spanish  State  Papers,  iv.  590,  591. 


400  NOTES. 

^•^  Tames  Melville,  pp.  318,  319  ;  Privy  Council  Register,  Aberdeen,  October  19, 
V.  182. 

*^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  668. 

*®  Cockburne  to  Bowes,  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  668. 

59  Calderwood,  v.  361,  362. 

^^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  670,  671  ;  Border  Calendar,  ii.  17. 

®i  Calderwood,  v.  364,  365.  Colville  writes  that  he  was  present  at  the  taking  of 
Hercules,  but  interceded  for  his  life  (Letters,  p.  139). 

®-  Calderwood,  v.  366 ;  Creighton,  An  Apologie,  Miscellany  of  the  Scottish 
History  Society,  i.  53. 

^  Letters  of  John  Colville,  p.  146.  *^^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  679,  680. 

*'  State  Papers,  Scot.,  MS.  Eliz.,  vol.  Ivi.,  No.  62. 

^''  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  689-692. 

*'  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  705,  February  24. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  380. 

^^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  699;  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  235,  236. 

70  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  246  <f/  sei/. 

"'  Letters  of  John  Colville,  p.  190. 


401 


CHAPTER   XV. 

THE    KING    CONQUERS    THE    PREACHERS. 
1596-1597- 

The  year  1596  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  the  history  of 
Scotland.  The  empty  exchequer  caused  the  king  to  adopt  one, 
if  not  two,  unusual  measures.  The  first  was  the  appointment  of 
a  board  of  eight  men  to  control  finance  and  expenditure  :  these 
"Octavians,"  as  they  were  called,  became  practically  a  ruling 
Cabinet,  but  their  authority  did  not  outlive  the  year.  The  king's 
second  expedient,  if  we  may  believe  statements  which  contain 
suspicious  elements,  was  the  endeavour  to  raise  money  from  Spain 
and  the  Pope,  accompanying  his  petitions  with  promises  of  change 
of  creed.  The  history  of  the  relations  of  Church  and  State  in 
this  year  was  rich  in  variety.  As  Calderwood  writes,  "  The  Kirk 
of  Scotland  was  now  come  to  her  perfection,  and  the  greatest 
puritie  that  ever  she  atteaned  unto,  both  in  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline, so  that  her  beautie  was  admirable  to  forraine  Kirks."  But 
before  the  carols  of  Christmas-tide  were  sung  (these  were  among 
the  left-hand  fallings  off  which  good  men  deplored)  all  was  changed, 
and  there  began  "  that  doolefull  decay  and  declynning  of  this 
Kiik,  which  has  continued  to  this  houre,  proceeding  from  worse 
to  worse,"  for  Calderwood  wrote  before  the  glorious  revival  of  the 
Kirk  in  the  Great  Rebellion.  The  return  of  the  Catholic  earls, 
involving  the  decay  of  the  Kirk,  and  the  famous  affair  of  Kinmont 
Willie,  also  marked  the  year  1596. 

The  Octavians,  appointed  as  auditors  of  the  Exchequer  for  life, 
for  the  collection  and  administration  of  public  and  royal  revenue 
and  expenditure,  were  a  body  who  sat  daily  without  salary.  James 
was  personally  reckless  in  expenditure  and  lavish  in  giving,  while 

VOL.    II.  2  c 


402  THE   OCTAVIANS   (1596). 

funds  were  collected  with  difficulty,  and  official  salaries  were  always 
in  arrears.  The  Octavians  were  expected  to  take  order  in  these 
affairs,  but  the  suspicion  of  idolatry  that  was  attached  to  some  of 
them  mortally  off"ended  good  men  ;  while  bad  men,  the  Cubiculars 
or  courtiers,  resented  their  economies.  The  end,  at  the  close  of 
the  year,  was  a  revolutionary  scene,  and  the  Octavians  fell  in  the 
crash  of  Kirk,  State,  and  Court.  The  Octavians  themselves  appear 
to  have  been  wisely  selected.  First  comes  the  President  of  the 
Court  of  Session,  Alexander  Seton,  called  Lord  Urquhart,  the  third 
son  of  George,  seventh  Lord  Seton,  the  famous  Catholic  friend  of 
]\Liry  Stuart.  Every  one  knows  his  sister,  Catherine  Seton,  the 
charming  fictitious  heroine  of  'The  Abbot.'  The  son  of  such  a 
father  as  Lord  Seton,  this  Octavian  could  not  but  be  suspected  of 
leanings  to  idolatry,  and  he  was  to  be  especially  odious  for  his  share 
in  reintroducing  the  banished  Catholic  earls.  William  Stewart,  lay 
Prior  of  Blantyre,  was  also  a  judge,  and  rose  to  be  Treasurer. 
Carnegie  of  Colluthie  had  long  been  an  active  member  of  the 
Privy  Council,  and  belonged  to  a  shire  of  dubious  Protestantism. 
John  Lindsay,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Crawford,  was  one  of  the 
judges,  a  man  of  affairs,  who  had  worked  hard  at  a  scheme  for  the 
proper  endowment  of  the  Kirk.  Ecclesiastical  finance,  owing  to 
the  change  of  faith  and  the  depredations  of  laymen,  was  in  a  state 
of  chaos,  and  it  is  asserted  that  four  hundred  parishes  were  un- 
supplied  with  regular  ministers.  Lindsay  drew  up  what  was  called 
"The  Constant  Plat,"  or  scheme,  for  Church  endowment.  The 
experienced  Alexander  Hay,  Clerk  of  Register,  held  that  no  such 
scheme  could  be  invented,  or,  if  invented,  carried  into  practice ; 
Lindsay  constructed  the  system,  but  died  in  Hay's  belief  that  it 
was  impracticable.^  The  details  of  the  plan  are  too  complicated 
for  such  a  work  as  this,  but  Lindsay  acknowledges  that  there  is  no 
means  at  present  to  augment  the  stipends  of  poor  ministers,  nor  to 
plant  new  ministers,  "  albeit  the  most  part  of  all  the  parish  kirks 
of  Scotland  are  altogether  destitute  of  all  exercise  of  religion." 

Every  reader  must  have  remarked  that  vice  and  wickedness,  if 
they  did  not  increase  after  the  Reformation,  at  all  events  did  not 
diminish,  and  we  might  infer  that  Calvinism,  whatever  its  merits, 
bore  no  better  moral  fruits  than  plain  idolatry  had  borne.  But  it 
ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that,  thanks  to  the  greed  of  the  nobles 
and  gentry  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Lord,  many  parts  of  Scot- 
land were  as  destitute  of  rehgious  teaching  as  the  Solomon  Islands, 


THE   MYSTERY   OF   POURIE.  4O3 

or  at  best  the  pious  had  to  climb  by  ladders  into  the  upper  rooms, 
where  skulking  Jesuit  missionaries  ofiEiciated.-  The  financial  scheme 
of  this  Octavian,  Lindsay,  for  re-endowment,  was  therefore  grateful 
to  the  preachers,  though  they  not  unjustly  held  that  the  Court  used 
the  "  plat "  as  a  mere  sop  to  conciliate  the  Brethren.^ 

Another  Octavian,  Elphinstone  of  Innernaughty,  was  one  of  the 
judges,  but  was  suspected  of  Catholicism,  as  was  Hamilton  of  Drum- 
cairn,  "  Tarn  o'  the  Cowgate,"  so  called  from  his  palace  in  that  street 
of  palaces.  Skene  of  Curriehill,  also  a  judge,  was  one  of  the  most 
eminent  of  Scottish  legists,  a  classical  scholar,  and  well  acquainted 
with  the  Teutonic  languages, — "a  good,  true,  stout  man,  like  a  Dutch- 
man." Finally  we  have  Mr  Peter  Young,  James's  old  tutor  and 
librarian,  whom  he  employed  on  diplomatic  missions.  He,  at  least, 
was  a  good  Protestant.  It  may  seem  that  James  could  have  made 
no  better  selection  of  officials,  all  men  of  learning  in  law  or  in  fine 
scholarship.  If  they  lay  under  suspicion  of  Catholic  tendencies, 
that  merely  proves  the  slender  hold  of  Calvinism  on  the  higher 
intelligences  of  the  country,  despite  the  adhesion  of  St  Andrews 
with  its  distinguished  scholars.'* 

The  year  opened,  politically,  with  the  return  of  Bowes  as  Eliz- 
abeth's ambassador.  Elizabeth  complained  of  want  of  money :  James 
lamented  her  broken  promises.  She  hinted  that  there  were  rumours 
of  his  deaUng  with  Spain  :  he  replied  that  Spain  was  liberal,  but  that 
he  would  not  be  entangled  in  the  threatened  plan  of  invasion.  How 
far  we  may  think  him  honest  depends  on  our  sense  of  an  intrigue  at 
Rome  and  Madrid,  then  being  conducted  by  a  person  who  bore 
alleged  letters  of  credit  from  James.^  That  negotiator,  Ogilvie  of 
Pourit',  concerning  whom  more  is  to  be  said  later,  had  since  June 
1595  been  dealing  with  Spaniards  in  the  Low  Countries.  He  left 
Scotland  when  Huntly  was  exiled,  and  a  letter  of  a  Catholic  sym- 
pathiser at  Campveire  (February  24)  speaks  of  "the  King  of  Scots 
man"  (Pourie)  as  "a  false  knave,"  adding,  "his  credit  is  lost  with 
Huntly  and  Errol."®  Was  Pourie  actually  "the  King  of  Scots 
man,"  was  he  an  accredited  envoy  to  Spain  and  the  Pope ;  if  so, 
were  all  his  papers  and  promises  genuine  ?  He  was  at  once 
James's  spy  on  Huntly,  Cecil's  spy  on  James,  and  an  adventurer 
intriguing  "  for  his  own  hand."  James  was  perhaps  trying  to  get 
papal  and  Spanish  gold,  and  to  induce  Philip  to  regard  him  as 
successor  to  the  English  crown,  at  which  Philip,  with  the  assent  of  a 
party  of  the  English  Catholics,  was  aiming  himself.     James  was  per- 


404  OUTPOURING   OF   GRACE. 

fectly  capable  of  deceiving  Elizabeth,  Spain,  and  the  Pope  ;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  Pourie  was  "  a  false  knave,"  and  the  truth  about 
this  intrigue  (which  the  Kirk  shrewdly  suspected  to  be  in  progress) 
is  hard  to  ascertain.  Bowes,  at  all  events  (March  lo),  sent  an 
unwontedly  favourable  report  of  James's  loyalty,  and  efforts  in  the 
cause  of  religion,  justice,  peace,  and  sound  finance.^  But  Lady 
Huntly  (sister  of  Lennox,  and  a  friend  of  the  queen)  was  at  Court, 
and  a  source  of  anxiety  to  good  men. 

On  March  24  the  General  Assembly  met  in  Edinburgh.  There 
was  a  great  outpouring  of  grace.  The  irreconcilable  Mr  Davidson 
handed  in  the  ideas  of  the  presbytery  of  Haddington,  now,  in  a  new 
sense,  The  Lamp  of  the  Lothians.  The  Assembly  ought  first  to  de- 
plore the  national  off-fallings,  beginning  with  a  catalogue  of  the  back- 
slidings  of  the  ministers  themselves.  "  Let  the  priests,  the  ministers 
of  the  Lord,  weep  between  the  porch  and  the  altar "  (Joel  ii.  17). 
There  was  no  altar,  and  sometimes  no  porch.  Next,  the  more  con- 
genial theme  of  the  sins  of  princes  was  to  be  faithfully  exposed  and 
lamented.  It  was  acknowledged  that  the  king  swore  terribly : 
indeed  James's  colloquial  eloquence  was  florid  both  in  the  matters 
of  profanity  and  indecency.  Lastly,  the  offences  of  the  general  public 
were  enumerated  in  "a  catalogue  over  easy  to  be  made." 

On  March  2  5  James  made  a  speech  to  the  Assembly.  He  wanted 
money  for  national  defence  ;  but  as  to  his  own  sins  he  requested  that 
he  might  be  admonished  privately.  That,  we  conceive,  was  his  right, 
and  the  right  of  the  humblest  of  his  subjects,  according  to  the  First 
Book  of  Discipline.  Queen  Mary  had,  we  saw,  drawn  Knox's  atten- 
tion to  this  point,  but  he  replied  evasively.  James  declared  that 
"his  chamber  door  should  be  patent  to  the  meanest  minister  in 
Scotland,"  but  the  preachers  much  preferred  "  to  do  it  in  public," 
to  castigate  him  from  the  pulpit.  Regarding  money  for  national 
defence,  Andrew  Melville  proposed  to  take  it  from  the  property  of 
the  Catholic  exiles.  This  was  a  natural  suggestion,  but  the  earls 
had  only  gone  abroad  on  a  compromise  arranged  by  Huntly's  brother- 
in-law,  Lennox.  Their  wives  and  families  were  not  left  destitute, 
but  enjoyed  their  estates.  Melville  denounced  this  arrangement, 
which  was  part  of  the  detested  policy  of  not  extirpating  and  ruining 
Catholics.  Doubtless,  according  to  the  law  of  the  land  and  his  own 
promises,  James  ought  to  have  extirpated  all  idolaters.  But  however 
desirable  that  policy  may  be  ideally,  reasons  of  State,  and  of  family 
affection,  perhaps  even  of  the  old  Adam,  our  fallen  nature,  prevented 


BOCHIM.  405 

James  and  the  ruling  classes  from  making  real  the  ideal  of  the  Kirk. 
In  Knox's  time  the  same  slackness  had  been  displayed.  Technically, 
the  ministers  were  right,  and  could  charge  James  with  hypocrisy  and 
falsehood ;  but  in  a  world  of  compromise  practical  politicians  may 
incline  to  palliate  his  offence. 

In  reply  to  Davidson,  who  followed  Melville  on  the  same  side, 
James  said  that  he  would  not  refuse  to  be  judged  by  the  Assembly, 
or  any  minister,  "  providing  it  be  done  privately."  Davidson, 
turning  to  his  brethren,  answered  that  as  to  whether  private  ad- 
monition for  "  open,  and  manifest  continuing  therein  "  (in  sin),  was 
in  accordance  with  the  Word  of  God,  "  ye  are  to  judge."  The 
Book  of  Discipline  recommends  private  admonition  first,  then 
public  denunciation  if  the  sinner  persists.  But  what  is  "  sin "  ? 
Of  that  the  preachers,  "  the  prophets,"  were  to  be  judges,  and  their 
inspiration  usually  led  them  to  denounce  James's  poHcy,  or  "  sin," 
from  the  pulpit.  James's  policy  (if  Pourie  was  his  envoy)  was 
sinful  enough.  But  the  old  claim  to  deliver  inspired  denunciations 
of  the  political  tendencies  of  rulers  is  not  compatible  with  the 
existence  of  the  State.  The  preachers  erected  an  wiperium  in  im- 
perio.  Within  a  few  months  James  dealt  a  heavy  blow  at  the 
interfering  system  of  the  Kirk. 

The  Assembly  then  passed  to  its  functions  as  the  War  Office  of 
the  period.  Parochial  Captains  and  county  Colonels  were  to  be 
selected ;  there  were  to  be  monthly  drillings,  or  at  least  musters ; 
corslets,  muskets,  and  pikes  were  to  be  prepared.  Later  in  the 
year  the  Kirk,  or  some  of  its  representatives,  were  engaged  in  a 
scheme  which- would  have  turned  these  musters  and  muskets  against 
the  king.  The  financial  supplies,  the  Assembly  insisted,  must  be 
raised  from  the  estates  of  the  Catholic  exiles.  It  was  decided  to 
keep  a  day  of  humiliation,  Mr  Davidson  presiding.  The  enor- 
mities of  the  ministers  were  next  dwelt  upon  :  they  mainly  arose 
from  the  system  of  patronage,  which  probably  introduced  ministers 
*'  in  gorgeous  and  light  apparel,"  given  to  dancing,  card-playing,  and 
hazard,  while  others  kept  taverns,  were  factors  or  traders.  It  is 
unlikely  that  these  joyous  or  commercial  spirits  entered  the  Kirk 
by  any  other  door  than  that  of  patronage.  Probably  they  did  not 
assiduously  attend  the  General  Assemblies,  where  we  hear  little  or 
nothing  of  votes  given  in  the  Court  interest.  The  day  of  humilia- 
tion was  March  30.  With  sighing  and  moaning  "  the  Kirk  re- 
sounded,  so  that   it    might   worthily  have    been  called    Bochim." 


406  "HERE    END    ALL   SINCERE   ASSEMBLIES." 

Before  leaving  Bochim  the  Assembly  held  up  their  hands,  "to 
testify  their  entering  in  a  new  league  with  God " ;  and  only  one 
person  "  despised  that  exercise  " — namely,  Mr  Thomas  Buchanan, 
who  went  not  unpunished,  for  in  the  end  he  was  killed  by  a  fall 
from  his  horse.  The  renewal  of  the  Covenant  was  recommended 
to  the  Kirk  at  large. 

These  impressive  scenes  displayed  the  sincere  belief  of  the 
Assembly  that  they  directly  represented  the  people  of  Israel. 
Scotland  was  their  Promised  Land,  to  extirpate  Amalekites  was 
their  bounden  duty.  The  more  popular  preachers  were  prophets, 
like  Samuel  and  Elijah  :  the  king  was  usually  cast  for  the  part  of 
Saul,  Ahab,  or  Jeroboam,  according  to  circumstances.  The  queen 
was,  more  or  less,  like  the  daughter  of  Herodias  •  three  ministers 
were  sent  to  point  out  that  she  and  her  ladies  were  too  fond  of 
dancing.  As  to  the  general  public,  family  prayers  were  either 
neglected  or  directed  by  "  cooks,  stewards,  jackmen,  and  suchlike." 
There  were  still  hoHdays,  bonfires,  pilgrimages,  and  singing  of  carols 
at  Christmas-tide.  The  Sabbath  was  not  devoutly  kept :  profane 
swearing  was  too  much  exercised;  there  was  "a  flood  of  bloodshed 
and  deadly  feuds  " ;  sexual  morality  was  at  a  low  ebb ;  and  rents 
were  much  too  high,  while  there  was  "  extreme  thraldom  in  ser- 
vices" — that  is,  labour- rents.  Pipers  and  fiddlers  and  sturdy 
beggars  were  numerous.  Justice  was  corrupt,  and  lay  abbots, 
priors,  and  "  dumb  bishops  "  were  allowed  to  vote  as  the  spiritual 
estate  in  Parliament.  The  Court  of  Session  was  amenable  to 
bribery. 

Such  is  a  sketch  of  the  condition  of  Scotland  in  the  year  1596, 
when  the  Kirk  was  now  come  to  her  perfection.  "  And  here," 
says  Calderwood  in  despair,  "  end  all  the  sincere  Assemblies  General 
of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  enjoying  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel  under 
the  free  government  of  Christ !  "  "  Too  soon  despairer  !  "  The 
Kirk  was  again  to  be  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners,  till  Oliver 
Cromwell  sent  an  ofificer  of  hussars  to  turn  the  General  Assembly 
into  the  street.     (Calderwood,  v.  394-411.) 

While  James  was  making  as  fair  weather  as  might  be  with  the 
Brethren,  he  had  an  envoy,  Fowlis,  at  the  Court  of  Elizabeth.  But 
negotiations  were  clouded  by  Buccleuch's  rescue  of  Kinmont  Willie 
from  bonds  in  Carlisle  Castle.  This  joyous  feat  of  arms  is  best 
described  in  the  famous  ballad,  however  much  or  however  little 
it  may  owe   to  the   touch   of  Sir  Walter  Scott.      Kinmont  Willie,. 


KINMONT   WILLIE   (1596).  407 

to  be  brief,  had  been  captured  by  a  large  force  of  Englishmen  as 
he  rode  to  his  Liddesdale  home  on  the  evening  of  a  Warden  court. 
A  truce  existed,  by  Border  law,  till  sunrise  of  the  day  after  the  meet- 
ing ;  but  "  the  false  Salkeld,"  Lord  Scrope's  deputy,  had  seized 
Willie  contrary  to  law  and  custom.  This  must  have  been  in  March 
1596,  for  Buccleuch's  remonstrances  are  mentioned  by  a  corres- 
pondent of  Bowes  on  April  i.^  Remonstrance  with  Scrope  was  in 
vain,  Willie  was  destined  to  be  hanged  at  Hairibee ;  but  Buccleuch 
had  taken  his  measures.  The  Castle  of  Carlisle  was  strong,  the 
town  populous,  the  position  girdled  by  Esk  and  Eden.  But 
Buccleuch  determined  on  entering,  by  a  night  camisade,  a  fortress 
which  had  repelled  the  war-leaders  of  the  Bruce.  His  kinsmen 
dwelt  hard  by  his  house  of  Branxholm  on  Teviot,  four  miles  from 
Hawick.  Not  a  mile  farther  down  the  river  stands  the  fortalice  of 
Goldielands ;  two  miles  across  the  hill  behind  Branxholm,  on  a  cliff 
above  a  burn  that  flows  into  Borthwick  Water,  is  the  keep  of  Wat 
Scott  of  Harden.  From  Teviotdale,  Borthwick,  and  Slitrig  w^aters 
the  W^arden  called  in  two  hundred  riders  of  his  clan  and  of  the 
Armstrongs.  From  Liddesdale,  as  they  rode  south,  the  Border 
prickers  came  in,  bearing  scaling-ladders,  crowbars,  hammers,  and 
axes.  Apparently  they  rested  at  Langholm,  and  started  thence 
on  the  following  night.  The  Grahams  of  the  Debatable  Land 
were  in  the  plot.  The  night  was  mirk  with  torrents  of  rain,  but, 
starting  from  Langholm,  they  knew  every  foot  of  the  way,  splashed 
through  Esk,  swam  their  horses  over  Eden, — "  The  water  was  great, 
and  mickle  o'  spate." 

"  He's  either  himsel'  a  devil  frae  hell, 
Or  else  his  mother  a  witch  maun  be. 
I  wadna  hae  ridden  that  wan  water 
For  a'  the  govvd  o'  Chrislcntie  ! " 

says  Lord  Scrope  in  the  ballad. 

At  Caday  burn  Buccleuch  dismounted  most  of  his  men  and 
led  them  to  the  castle  wall.  The  ladders  were  short,  but  they 
found  an  entrance,  seized  the  sentinels,  forced  open  a  postern, 
and  while  Buccleuch  kept  watch  in  the  court  a  band  broke  into 
the  Kinmont's  chamber,  bore  him  off,  ironed  as  he  was,  and  the 
trumpets  of  Buccleuch  sounded  "  Rise  for  Branxholm  readily." 
Scrope,  knowing  nothing  as  to  the  numbers  of  the  assailing  force, 
preferred  the  better  part  of  valour ;  Willie  roared  his  good  night 
to  the  Warden,  and  at  the  first  smith's  bothy  on  the  Scottish  side 


408  CECIL   AND   POURIE. 

was  liberated  from  his  "heavy  spurs."  EHzabeth  of  course  was 
enraged,  and  demanded  that  Buccleuch,  the  most  popular  man 
in  Scotland,  should  be  surrendered  to  her.  It  is  usually  said 
that  he  was,  and  that  he  had  an  interview  with  her  majestj',  but, 
after  a  brief  period  of  courteous  warding  in  St  Andrews  Castle, 
James  released  the  gallant  captor  of  Carlisle  (November  lo).^ 
Buccleuch  was  needed  on  the  Border,*  and  he  had  only  righted 
by  the  strong  hand  a  wrong  which  the  strong  hand  had  done. 
By  way  of  raising  a  counter-grievance,  James  complained  that  he 
and  his  mother  had  been  insulted  in  Spenser's  "Faery  Queen," 
but  Edmund  Spenser  escaped  trial  and  punishment.^*' 

At  this  time  our  old  acquaintance,  Archibald  Douglas,  was  in 
trouble  on  a  charge  of  trafficking  with  Bothwell.  All  his  craft 
had  not  availed  to  keep  him  in  that  singular  diplomatic  situation 
of  a  semi-official  envoy  of  Scotland,  paid  by  England. ^'^  We  hear 
little  more  of  this  versatile  and  unredeemed  miscreant,  who  dwindles 
into  a  spy  of  the  Cecils. 

With  the  warm  weather  of  early  summer  the  Catholic  exiles  and 
their  friends  began  to  bestir  themselves.  Lady  Huntly  was  at  Court, 
and,  no  doubt,  was  working  privately  on  the  king  and  queen.  From 
Augsburg  a  Mr  Anderson  sent  a  warning  letter  to  the  preachers 
(April  27,  1596).  "The  storm  was  imminent,"  intriguers  were 
busy  at  Rome,  Walter  Lindsay  had  been  sent  to  Spain.  But  the 
Spaniards  objected  that,  after  sending  large  sums  in  gold,  they  had 
not  received  their  money's  worth  from  Huntly  and  his  allies.  They 
blamed  Bruce,  who,  as  we  saw,  declared  that  Huntly  could  not  be 
trusted  with  the  gold,  and  Bruce  was  now  under  a  cloud.  In  fact 
none  of  them,  nor  any  Scot  of  any  party,  could  be  trusted  with 
money.  Bruce  himself  was  a  double  spy,  as  occasion  ministered 
opportunity.  One  of  the  Lethingtons  (author  of  the  MS.  Apology 
for  his  father,  the  great  Secretary)  was  travelling  in  Italy  on  treason- 
able business,  which  he  had  already  worked  from  the  house  of  his 
father-in-law.  Lord  Herries,  dealing  especially  with  Cecil,  an  English 
priest.^- 

This  Cecil,  a  secular  priest,  and  a  spy  of  his  namesakes,  the 
statesmen  Cecils,  was,  in  fact,  accompanying  and  counter-working 
Ogilvie  of  Pourie.  In  September  1594  Pourie  had  been  denounced 
as  a  papist  and  rebel. ^^     Yet  in  the  years  1595-96  he  appears  in 

*  He  was  later  warded  in  Berwick  for  other  reasons.  Still  later  he  had  an 
interview  with  Elizabeth  on  his  way  to  fight  in  the  Low  Countries. 


FORGERIES   OF   POURIE.  4O9 

the  Low  Countries  and  Italy  calling  himself  accredited  envoy  of 
James  to  the  Pope,  Spain,  and  idolaters  in  general.  To  the 
Pope  he  presented  what  he  called  James's  petitions  :  James  asked 
for  2000  gold  crowns  a-month  that  he  might  put  down  his  rebels, 
and  4000  a-month  after  he  had  professed  Catholicism.  Father 
Tyrie  plainly  said  that  James's  promises  in  the  way  of  religion 
were  all  "  invention  and  deceit."  Another  paper  was  designed 
to  show,  by  James's  past  conduct,  that  he  was  no  enemy  of 
Catholics.  In  fact  the  paper  justified  all  the  suspicions  which 
the  preachers  entertained  about  the  king.  But  the  statements  them- 
selves have  a  very  suspicious  air.  James  must  have  known,  for 
instance,  that  his  father  was  not  "Earl  of  Lennox,"  and  was  not 
murdered  by  order  of  Elizabeth  !  Yet  Pourie  makes  James  talk 
thus  in  his  Letter  of  Credit.  Indeed  Pourie  made  so  many  absurd 
and  contradictory  proposals  that  he  was  not  trusted  at  Rome,  nor 
in  Spain.  He  was  accompanied  by  the  secular  priest,  named  Cecil, 
already  mentioned  as  a  spy  of  his  namesakes  in  England,  and  Cecil 
wrote  a  tract  against  Pourie's  statements  in  favour  of  James.  Pourie 
was  imprisoned  at  Barcelona,  and  the  Catholics  of  the  English  and 
Spanish  faction  had  a  bitter  controversy  among  themselves  over  the 
whole  set  of  transactions.  Cecil  (the  priest-spy)  maintained  that 
Pourie's  letter  of  credit  from  James  was  either  forged  or  obtained 
by  fraud.  Pourie  declared  later  that  he  had  no  commission,  and 
erred  only  from  trop  de  zUe.  Both  Pourie  and  Cecil  became  spies 
of  the  Cecils,  and  in  May  the  Ministers  of  Elizabeth  seem  to 
have  received  the  papers  of  both  intriguers.  On  July  13  Bowes 
enclosed  copies  to  Cecil,  with  a  letter  from  the  Spanish  Ambassador 
at  Rome  to  the  King  of  Spain. ^*  It  is  not  easy  to  determine  the 
amount,  if  any,  of  James's  share  in  these  futile  plots,  but  if,  in 
despair  of  Elizabeth,  he  was  promising  to  Spain  and  the  Pope  his 
conversion  to  their  creed,  he  was  certainly  deceiving  these  Powers.* 
Probably  Pourie  had  forged  his  letters  of  credit,  or  had  amplified 
something  of  milder  character.^^  The  documents,  as  any  reader 
must  see,  are  impudent  impostures  as  they  stand. 

In  any  case,  the  elder  Cecil's  suspicions  were  aroused.  In  a 
letter  to  his  son.  Sir  Robert  (July  10),  he  speaks  of  the  Octavians 
as  "hollow  papists,"  and  advises  that  Bowes  should  ferret  out 
things  concerning  them  by  aid  of  the  preachers.^^     This  was  written 

*  See  a  letter  of  Pourie  to  James,  written  in  1601,  at  end  of  chapter  xviii., 
p.  496. 


410  HUNTLY   RETURNS. 

after  Cecil  had  got  wind  of  the  proceedings  of  Pourie,  which  were 
communicated  to  James.  (By  October  Pourie  appears  to  have  been 
in  alliance  with  Cecil.)  The  king,  of  course,  denied  that  he  had 
any  share  in  Pourie's  enterprise  (August  3),  and  declared  that, 
to  his  knowledge,  Huntly  had  not  returned  to  Scotland.  Lady 
Huntly,  however,  was  making  suit  for  her  husband.^'^  By  August 
10  Bowes  announced  Huntly's  arrival:  the  Kirk  was  greatly  dis- 
satisfied. Robert  Cecil  advised  Bowes  that,  if  Huntly  was  likely 
to  come  into  the  king's  peace,  he  had  better  invite  Elizabeth  to 
mediate  for  him  (August  27).  The  ministers  began  to  preach 
against  Huntly,  who,  by  returning  without  licence,  had  certainly 
broken  the  compact ;  though  it  was  whispered  that  James  had 
licensed  both  him  and  Angus. ^^  The  excitement  of  the  ministers 
on  the  reappearance  of  an  idolater,  the  murderer  of  the  Bonny 
Earl,  may  be  imagined.  On  October  19  Lady  Huntly  proposed 
certain  conditions  to  the  synod  of  Moray.  Her  lord  offered 
himself  for  trial,  and,  if  convicted,  would  "  underly  the  censures 
of  your  wisdoms,  king,  and  Council."  He  would  give  security 
for  his  behaviour ;  would  banish  from  his  presence  all  Jesuits  and 
notorious  papists ;  would  listen  to  the  arguments  of  the  preachers, 
and  be  converted,  if  he  could;  would  keep  "an  ordinar  minister" 
in  his  house  ;  and  he  begged  for  a  reasonable  time  wherein  to 
be  conscientiously  converted. 

On  October  20  the  Commissioners  of  the  General  Assembly  and 
the  synods  met  at  Edinburgh,  and  sent  a  circular  to  all  the  presby- 
teries. The  most  dangerous  and  threatening  fact  had  been  a 
decision  of  Council  at  Falkland  on  August  12.^^  It  had  been 
decided  that  Huntly  should  not  receive  licence  for  his  return.  But 
James,  in  the  exercise  of  his  clemency,  would  draw  up  conditions  : 
if  Huntly  accepted  these  the  country  would  be  free  from  the  dangers 
incident  on  the  exile  and  discontent  of  the  Catholic  earls.  Seton, 
the  President,  pleaded  in  favour  of  this  plan  :  Andrew  Melville 
burst  in  uncalled,  and  charged  everybody  with  "  high  treason  both 
against  Christ  and  the  king."  James  turned  Andrew  out,  and  won 
over  James  Melville  and  the  other  brethren  present.  "The  Estates 
conclude  that,  the  king  and  Kirk  being  satisfied,  it  were  best  to  call 
them  "  (the  exiles)  "  home,  and  that  his  majesty  should  hear  their 
offers  for  that  effect."  ^o  Early  in  October  the  Melvilles  and  the 
others  again  approached  James.  The  younger  Melville  spoke 
temperately,  but  the  irascible  Andrew  "  doucht  nocht  abyd  it " — 


INSOLENCE   OF   ANDREW    MELVILLE.  4I  I 

could  not  endure  it.  He  seized  James  by  the  sleeve,  "  he  laid  his 
hands  on  an  anointed  king,"  and  called  his  sovereign  "  God's  silly 
vassal."  There  were  in  Scotland,  Mr  Melville  observed  with  much 
vehemence,  two  kings,  Christ  and  James.  Now  the  preachers  were 
the  deputies  of  the  former  and  superior  monarch,  and  James  must 
attend  to  them,  and  not  to  his  "  devilish  and  most  pernicious  "  lay 
advisers. 

James  had  not  much  nerve  when  confronted  by  this  kind  of 
violence,  as  Fontaine  had  observed  ten  years  earlier.  He  ought  to 
have  called  the  Guard  (if  he  had  any)  to  remove  Mr  Melville,  but 
he  truckled.  A  king  should  not  permit  himself  to  be  practically 
collared  in  his  own  house  by  a  furious  college  don.  But  his 
majesty,  according  to  James  Melville,  promised  that  the  exiles 
should  not  be  heard  till  they  left  the  country,  and  should  not  come 
into  his  peace  till  they  satisfied  the  Kirk.-^ 

It  was  in  consequence  of  all  these  proceedings  that  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  General  Assembly  met  in  Edinburgh  on  October 
20.  They  recited  the  circumstances,  warned  the  country,  ordered  a 
day  of  public  humiliation  in  the  first  week  of  December ;  decided 
that  the  excommunication  of  the  earls  should  be  published  ;  and 
established  a  permanent  Committee  of  Public  Safety  in  Edinburgh. 
They  also  had  what  to  modern  minds  seems  the  extravagant 
insolence  to  summon  the  President,  Seton,  Lord  Urquhart,  before 
the  synod  of  Lothian.--  Whether  these  things  were,  or  were  not, 
within  the  powers  of  the  Kirk,  ecclesiastical  lawyers  may  decide. 
But  the  proceedings,  legally  justifiable  or  not,  were  absolutely 
unendurable,  and  how  Cromwell  would  have  dealt  with  the  officers 
of  the  General  Assembly  we  can  readily  guess.  James  was  not 
Oliver.  He  sent  Seton  and  others  to  treat  with  some  of  the 
preachers,  in  place  of  warding  them  in  Blackness.  He  offered  to 
show  the  exiles  no  favour  till  they  had  satisfied  the  Kirk.  This  offer 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Kirk  graciously  accepted.  Next  he 
humbly  inquired  whether,  if  the  exiles  did  satisfy  the  Kirk,  he 
might  be  allowed  to  extend  to  them  his  favour?  The  Commis- 
sioners answered,  No,  he  might  not.  The  law  of  God  and  Parlia- 
ment had  adjudged  the  exiles  to  death.  But  the  bosom  of  the  Kirk 
would  he  open  to  the  repentant.  Apparently,  if  repentant,  the 
exiles  might  die,  free  from  excommunication.  Mr  Tytler  takes 
this  sense  of  the  decision.^^  If  he  is  right,  the  Kirk  was,  in 
modern  phrase,   "  rather  above  herself." 


412  WAR   OF   KIRK   AND    KING, 

James  also  was  in  an  exalted  frame  of  mind.  There  was  at 
this  time  a  St  Andrews  minister  named  Black,  who  is  said  to 
have  caused  a  moral  reformation  in  a  city  which  sadly  needed 
it.  On  November  i  Bowes  reported  to  Cecil  that  Mr  Black  had 
used  in  a  sermon  offensive  phrases  about  Queen  Elizabeth.  The 
preachers  and  the  English  embassy  were  usually  close  allies,  but 
Mr  Black's  words  could  not  be  passed  over.  The  event  at  once 
irritated  James,  and  afforded  him  a  handle  against  the  Brethren. 
His  annoyance  was  freely  expressed,  and  on  November  9  four 
preachers  were  sent  for  to  converse  with  him.-*  The  preachers 
remonstrated:  James's  "common  talk  was  inventions  against  the 
ministers  and  their  doctrine."  Whether  this  meant  that  James 
invented  stories,  or  believed  the  inventions  of  others,  the  phrase 
was  uncivil.  They  also  complained  of  his  favour  to  the  exiles, 
and  to  Lady  Huntly,  who  had  been  invited  to  the  baptism  of 
the  queen's  daughter,  Elizabeth,  later  the  beautiful  unhappy  Queen 
of  Bohemia.  Further,  the  child's  governess  was  to  be  Lady 
Livingstone,  a  Catholic,  whom  the  Kirk  meant  to  excommunicate. 

James  replied.  There  could  be  no  peace  between  him  and  the 
Kirk  "  till  the  marches  of  their  jurisdiction  were  rade  "  or  defined. 
They  must  not  preach  on  affairs  of  State.  The  General  Assembly 
must  not  be  convoked  except  by  his  authority.  This  appears  to 
have  been  the  actual  state  of  the  laws  since  1592.  It  was  lawful 
for  the  Kirk  every  year,  and  oftener  as  occasion  arose,  to  hold 
General  Assemblies,  provided  that  the  king  or  his  Commissioners 
with  them,  before  each  Assembly  dissolved,  "  nominate  time  and  place, 
ivhen  and  where  the  7ie.xt  General  Assembly  shall  be  holdenP  ^^ 
Thus  the  preachers  could  not  legally  spring  an  Assembly  on  James, 
and  perhaps  raise  levies  of  armed  men.  Thirdly,  James  required 
that  Acts  of  the  Assembly,  as  of  Parliament,  must  receive  his  rati- 
fication. Fourthly,  the  Kirk  must  not  meddle  with  cases  which 
fell  under  the  civil  or  criminal  law  of  the  country.  He  granted 
nothing  as  to  the  grievances  about  the  earls  and  the  ladies.  The 
preachers  replied,  and  sent  some  of  their  number  to  study  the  legis- 
lation affecting  the  Kirk.  That  day  (November  1 1 )  the  preachers 
learned  that  Mr  Black  of  St  Andrews  was  called  before  the  king 
and  Council  for  "infamous  speeches"  in  his  sermons  during 
October.  As  Aston  reported  to  Bowes,  Black  had  styled  Eliz- 
abeth an  atheist;  Bowes  had  remonstrated,  and  Black  was  sum- 
moned.^^     He  had  called  all  kings    "  devil's  bairns,"  insulted  the 


DECLINATURE   OF  JURISDICTION.  413 

queen,  and  so  forth.  If  correctly  reported,  Black  had  certainly 
gone  to  great  lengths.  On  November  12"  the  whole  Brethren  of 
the  Council  "  (the  sixteen  members,  apparently,  of  the  Kirk's  Com- 
mittee of  Public  Safety)  summoned  Lady  Huntly,  bade  the  presbytery 
of  Stirling  excommunicate  Lady  Livingstone,  and  decided  that  Black 
should  decline  the  jurisdiction  of  the  king  and  Council.  Probably 
the  Brethren  were  within  their  legal  rights  on  the  first  two  points, 
considering  the  penal  laws  against  Catholics.  By  November  16 
they  had  reduced  James  to  promise  "  to  purge  the  land  from  all 
papists  and  papistrie,  and  to  suffer  none,  in  whatsomever  degree, 
to  be  of  another  religion  that  he  was  of,"  whatever  that  may  have 
been.  As  to  Black,  James  "thought  not  much  of  that  matter"; 
only  let  Mr  Black  "  compeare  "  and  prove  his  innocence,  satisfying 
the  English  Ambassador.  "  But  take  heed,  sirs,"  said  James,  "  that 
ye  decline  not  my  jurisdiction  ;  for  if  ye  do  so,  it  will  be  worse." 
The  Brethren,  then  (November  17),  wrote  out  Black's  declinature 
of  jurisdiction,  and  signed  it,  all  of  them. 

Whether  the  Brethren  were  now  technically  within  their  legal 
rights,  as  at  that  hour  existing,  is  a  question  for  legists.  Dr 
M'Crie,  whose  sympathies  were  on  the  side  of  the  Kirk,  has  dis- 
cussed the  problem  in  reference  to  an  earlier  declinature,  practical 
if  not  explicit,  by  Andrew  Melville  (1584).  Others,  Dr  M'Crie 
remarks,  had  declined,  in  secular  matters,  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Council,  and  appealed  to  that  of  the  Lords  of  Session.  The  case 
is  not  parallel,  of  course,  to  the  old  claim  of  criminal  clerks  to  be 
tried  by  courts  spiritual,  say,  on  charges  of  murder  or  theft.  Black 
only  appealed  to  trial  by  his  brethren,  as  a  court  of  first  instanceP 
Dr  M'Crie  did  not  uphold  the  theory  that  a  preacher,  if  acquitted 
by  his  brethren  of  treasonable  phrases  in  a  sermon,  was  free  from 
trial  thereafter  by  the  civil  magistrate  on  the  same  count.  Such  a 
claim,  says  the  learned  author,  would  have  "  deserved  to  be  re- 
sisted and  reprobated."  The  question,  however,  ought  first  to 
have  been  heard  before  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  If  they,  through 
the  influence  of  undue  partiality,  should  justify  the  accused 
"  erroneously,  it  was  still  competent  for  the  civil  magistrate  to 
proceed  against  him."^^  "Such  was  the  full  amount  of  the  claim 
made  by  the  Church  at  this  time." 

This  is  vastly  well,  but  who  was  to  determine  whether  the  ecclesi- 
astical court,  in  acquitting  a  preacher  accused  of  treasonable  or 
libellous  remarks  in  his  sermons,  decided  "  erroneously  "  or  not  ? 


414  THE   PROPHETS   TO   BE  JUDGES. 

To  judge  by  the  language  used  in  Mr  Black's  declinature,  and 
indorsed  by  the  signatures  of  many  leading  preachers,  the  ecclesi- 
astical court  in  such  cases  was  incapable  of  judging  "  erroneously." 
Dr  M'Crie  knew  that  "undue  partiality"  was  possible  in  a  tribunal 
of  ministers,  and  was  aware  that  presbyteries  and  Assemblies  (like 
General  Councils,  in  the  Anglican  theory)  "  may  err,  and  have 
erred."  The  civil  courts,  in  Dr  M'Crie's  view,  might  (in  such 
instances)  revise  the  judgment  and  correct  the  error,  and  he  appears 
to  hold  that  the  Kirk  of  1596  was  of  the  same  opinion.  Now  it  is 
true  that  Mr  Black  declined  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Council,  "  at 
least  in  the  first  instance."  ^^  It  seems  to  be,  at  least,  arguable  that 
Black  had  a  right  to  decline  secular  judges  "in  the  first  instance."^" 
But  if  we  read  on,  we  shall  find  the  words  "  in  the  first  instance  " 
are  a  mere  technicality  or  "  hedge,"  for  the  language  of  the  declin- 
ature indicates  the  opinion  that  there  could  be  no  "second  in- 
stance," that  nobody  could  pretend  that  the  decision  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical court  might  be  "  erroneous,"  and  that,  if  dissatisfied  by  the 
decision  of  the  Kirk,  the  Government  had  no  appeal.  Black  and 
his  allies  maintained  that  he  was  the  "  ambassador  "  of  our  blessed 
Lord  ;  that  "  the  Word  "  contained  his  "  only  instructions  "  ;  that, 
when  preaching,  he  "  cannot  fall  in  the  reverence  of  any  civil  law 
of  man,  but  in  so  far  as  I  shall  be  found  to  have  passed  the  com- 
pass of  my  instructions."  Now,  this  question  "cannot  be  judged 
.  .  .  but  by  the  prophets " — that  is,  the  other  ministers.  There- 
fore "  of  necessity  the  prophets  "  (in  this  case  the  Fife  presbytery) 
"  must  first  declare  whether  I  have  keeped  the  bounds  of  my  direc- 
tions before  I  come  to  be  judged  by  your  majesty's  laws  for  my 
offence."  ^^ 

It  is  plain  that  if  the  prophets  are  the  first  judges  in  such  a  case 
as  Black's  (and  this  he  asserts),  there  is  no  court  that  can  revise  the 
prophets'  verdict.  Neither  the  Council  nor  the  Lords  of  Session 
were  inspired ;  in  fact,  part  of  the  charge  against  Black  was  that  he 
had  denounced  both  courts  as  corrupt,  and  as  cormorants.  His 
conduct  "  cannot  be  judged  except  by  the  prophets."  The  words 
as  to  "  the  first  instance  "  are  therefore  meaningless,  if  the  presby- 
tery acquits  the  accused.  In  this  essential  respect  the  claims  of  the 
preachers  in  1596  differ  from  the  opinion  of  Dr  M'Crie  in  181 9. 
Dr  M'Crie  admits  the  possibility  of  error  in  the  verdict,  say,  of 
the  Fife  presbytery.  Mr  Black  and  his  allies  do  not  admit  the 
possibility  of  error.      The  prophets  (the  presbytery)  are  inspired,  and 


THE   PROPHETS   BANISHED   EDINBURGH.  415 

(in  this  matter)  are  infallible  representatives  of  the  apostles,  and 
inherit  directly  the  apostolic  privilege  of  judgment. 

For  our  present  historical  purposes  it  does  not  matter  whether  the 
charges  against  Black  were  well  bottomed  on  evidence  or  not.  It 
does  not  matter  whether  the  state  of  the  law  as  it  stood  justified  his 
declinature  or  not.  Nor  are  we  concerned  with  the  fact  that  Black 
would  have  had  no  more  chance  of  a  fair  trial  before  the  Council 
than  the  king  would  have  received  unbiassed  justice  from  the 
prophets.  Historically  we  only  try  to  show  what  the  claims  of 
the  Brethren  actually  were.  In  such  cases  as  Black's  they  would 
be  judged  by  the  prophets  in  the  first  instance,  and,  by  the  nature 
of  their  contention,  there  could  be  no  second  instance.  Therefore 
the  Kirk  was  the  ruler  of  the  State.  That  James  and  his  Council 
placed  themselves  legally  in  the  wrong  during  these  proceedings 
is  highly  probable,  or  certain.  But  our  object  is  to  explain  the 
precise  attitude  towards  civil  jurisdiction  assumed  by  the  preachers. 
Black's  declinature  was  given  in  on  November  18.  Cessford  and 
the  bold  Buccleuch,  men  of  this  world,  were  among  the  Council. 
The  minutes  of  the  day  record  that  Black  "alleged  that  none 
should  be  judges  of  matters  delivered  in  the  pulpit  but  the  preachers 
and  ministers  of  the  Word,"  and  therefore  desired  to  be  remitted  to 
his  judge  ordinary — namely,  his  presbytery — to  which  James  must 
come  as  a  Christian,  not  as  a  king.  He  admitted  that  James  might 
judge  in  matters  of  treason,  but  the  Church  must  judge  in  the  first 
instance.^^ 

The  Brethren  now  (November  20)  sent  the  declinature  to  all  the 
presbyteries,  with  a  letter  inviting  the  other  prophets  to  sign  it. 
This  irritated  James,  and  the  Committee  of  Presbyterian  Public 
Safety  appointed  a  General  Assembly  to  be  held  in  January  (Novem- 
ber 24).  This  they  did  without  the  presence  of  the  king  or  his 
Commissioner,  contrary  to  the  law  of  1592,  or  so  it  seems  to  the 
present  writer.  They  also  sent  four  of  their  number  to  ask  James 
to  leave  off  "  pursuing "  Black  till  after  this  General  Assembly.^^ 
On  the  same  day  the  Privy  Council  declared  the  Committee  of 
Public  Safety  (the  permanent  session  of  the  sixteen  Commissioners 
of  the  General  Assembly)  to  be  illegal.  They  meant,  by  sending 
round  the  declinature  for  signature,  to  "  raise  trouble,  sedition,  and 
insurrection."  The  Commissioners  must  therefore  return  to  their 
neglected  flocks  within  twenty-four  hours.  They  must  desist  from 
calling  unlawful  convocations  of  barons  and  others."*     The  Com- 


4l6  THE   KING   TRUCKLES. 

missioners  refused  to  obey  this  order.  James  weakly  permitted 
them  to  remain  and  split  straws  of  legal  delicacy.  They  would 
defer  the  declinature  if  James  would  postpone  pursuit  of  Black  till 
after  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly.  On  November  30  the  king  and 
Council  unanimously  voted  themselves  lawful  judges  in  the  case  of 
Black.  But  on  the  same  day  Black  was  again  summoned,  the 
summons  being  "  slanderous,  blasphemous,  and  malicious,"  says 
Calderwood. 

The  "convocations"  assembled  by  the  preachers  without  royal 
licence  were  pronounced  seditious.  The  Committee  of  Public 
Safety  (the  sixteen  Commissioners  of  the  Kirk)  were  bidden  to 
leave  Edinburgh  in  twenty-four  hours.  In  reply  they  ordered  the 
preachers  to  "  deal  mightily  by  the  Word  "  against  the  king's  pro- 
clamation. The  preachers  are  "answerable"  to  Christ  alone,  "and 
not  to  be  controlled  or  discharged  by  any  other."  Here  is  a  plain 
proof  that  their  verdicts  could  not  be  revised  by  any  lay  court. -^^ 
On  November  29  the  Sixteen  had  drawn  up  articles  to  be  presented 
to  James.  Their  general  purpose  was  to  remit  the  matters  under 
consideration  to  the  General  Assembly.  On  November  30  Black 
put  in  a  second  declinature,  full  of  Scriptural  texts.  James  once 
more  tried  to  escape  the  battle  by  a  feeble  personal  compromise, 
which  the  Commissioners  refused.  He  would  pardon  Black,  if 
Black  would  come  and  "  resolve  his  majesty  of  the  truth  of  all 
the  points  libelled,  by  the  declaration  of  his  own  conscience."  ^^ 
In  fact  James  had  practically  truckled,  and  renounced  his  cause, 
when  some  of  his  advisers  put  a  little  heart  into  him,  and  he  sent 
to  Black  bidding  him  come  and  confess  "  an  offence  done  to  the 
queen  at  least,  and  so  receive  pardon."  Black  appealed  to  tes- 
timonials which  he  had  received  from  the  city  and  University  of 
St  Andrews,  and  would  "  confess  no  fault,  how  light  soever."  ^^  On 
December  2  the  Council  found  Black  guilty  in  his  absence,  left  the 
penalty  to  the  king,  and  meanwhile  ordered  him  to  pass  "  be  north 
the  North  Water,"  on  pain  of  outlawry  if  he  disobeyed. ^'^ 

Even  after  this  "  truces  "  and  negotiations  went  on,  James  trying 
to  have  peace  with  a  shred  of  honour,  which  he  could  not  keep  if 
he  did  not  punish  Black  in  the  terms  of  the  decision  of  December 
2.  The  President,  Seton,  was  blamed  for  enlightening  James  on 
the  rather  obvious  point  that  his  jurisdiction  over  the  Kirk  was  not 
secured  unless  Black  was  put  to  some  penalty. ^^  All  this  while 
fasts    were    being    kept,  and    the    people    were    being    excited    by 


RIOT   OF    DECEMBER    17    (1596).  417 

sermons ;  "  the  doctrine  sounded  powerfully ; "  in  fact  there  was 
organised  agitation  (Sunday,  December  12).  On  December  13 
James  announced  his  intention  to  cut  off  the  supplies  of  the 
preachers,  by  refusing  their  stipends  to  such  as  would  not  sign  a 
"  band  "  which  was  to  be  submitted  to  them.^*^  The  Sixteen  were 
desiring  the  presbytery  of  Edinburgh  to  excommunicate  "  such 
persons  of  highest  rank  as  are  known,  or  may  be  found,  to  be 
malicious  enemies  against  the  ministry  and  cause  of  Jesus  Christ."'*^ 
This  was  a  strong  measure.  The  presbytery  might  choose  to  think 
the  king  and  Council  malicious  enemies,  and  might  deliver  them, 
and  all  who  harboured  them,  over  to  Satan.  But  now  the  sixteen 
Commissioners  were  officially  summoned  to  leave  Edinburgh  within 
twenty-four  hours.  They  obeyed,  leaving  a  manifesto  behind  them. 
James  once  more  tried  to  negotiate,  but  the  Edinburgh  preachers 
would  not  parley  till  the  Commissioners  were  publicly  recalled. 

James  at  this  time  appears  to  have  been  a  mere  shuttlecock. 
When  in  presence  of  the  Commissioners  he  looked  on  all  sides 
for  an  evasion.  When  surrounded  by  his  Council  he  adopted 
vigorous  measures  which  next  day  he  tried  to  water  down.  But 
on  December  17  events  occurred  which  at  once  forced  his  hand 
and  gave  him  an  opportunity.  For  three  weeks  the  pulpits  had 
rung  with  "the  doctrine,"  the  populace  was  at  once  puzzled  and 
irritated — the  Presbyterian  populace,  for  we  learn  nothing  about  the 
Catholic  populace,  which  Davidson  dreaded  worse  than  the  Court. 
Probably  "  the  rascal  multitude  "  (earnest  professors  apart)  had  no 
very  fixed  theological  tenets,  but  was  merely  "against  the  Govern- 
ment." If  the  king  had  the  upper  hand,  they  would  be  against 
him.  If  the  preachers  "  ruled  the  roast,"  as  the  saying  was,  and 
interfered  with  markets  and  holidays,  the  multitude  would  be  against 
the  preachers.  On  this  occasion  the  populace  was  on  the  side  of 
the  "  prophets."  It  has  been  said  that  the  "  Cubiculars,"  gentlemen 
of  the  Household,  hated  the  Octavians  for  their  economical  meas- 
ures. But  they  naturally  did  not  love  the  precise.  They  therefore 
circulated  rumours — on  one  hand,  that  the  lives  of  the  Octavians 
were  in  danger  from  the  citizens  ;  on  the  other,  that  the  Octavians 
were  the  causes  of  the  ill-treatment  of  the  Kirk.  Twenty-four  sub- 
stantial burgesses,  the  story  went,  were  to  be  expelled  from  the 
good  town.  News  of  a  private  intrigue,  by  a  "macer"  for  banish- 
ing a  bookseller,  reached  Balcanquhel,  or  Balcalquall,  the  preacher, 
who  preached  a  sermon  on  the  subject.     Bruce  next  held  what  is 

VOL.    II.  2  D 


41 8  MACLEAN   IN   THE   TUMULT. 

now  styled  "  an  indignation  neeting,"  in  the  "  Little  Kirk,"  where 
he  had  an  audience  of  barons  and  other  gentlemen. 

This  meeting  was  a  "convention,"  not  a  congregation.  Bal- 
canquhel  "  showed  that  he  had  a  warrant  from  the  Kirk  to  con- 
vene them,"  and  such  conventions,  gathered  by  warrants  from 
the  Kirk,  for  political  purposes  and  without  royal  authority,  the 
king  reckoned  illegal.  Bruce  directed  the  Assembly  "  to  hold 
up  their  hands,  vow  and  swear  to  defend  the  present  state  of 
religion  against  all  opponents  whomsoever."*^  Among  those  pre- 
sent, Bowes  writes,  was  the  great  Maclean,  he  of  the  hauberk 
and  the  battle-axe,  the  hero  of  Glenrinnes.  The  meeting  deputed 
the  fierce  Lord  Lindsay  and  others  to  visit  James,  who  was  sit- 
ting with  the  judges  in  the  Tolbooth.  During  their  absence 
Cranstoun,  a  preacher,  read  to  the  angry  crowd  the  story  of 
Haman  and  Mordecai,  "and  such  other  places  of  Scripture." 
The  king  received  the  deputation  with  courtesy,  he  declares;  but 
they  went  back  to  their  allies  discontented,  and,  according  to 
Spottiswoode,  numbers  of  people  were  at  this  tmie  thronging  un- 
mannerly into  the  king's  presence.  The  multitude  was  great, 
armed,  perplexed,  and  unruly.  How  dense  was  the  throng  we 
may  gather  from  the  proceedings  of  Maclean  of  Duart.  "  Hear- 
ing the  tumult  kindling  in  the  streets,  he  sought  access  to  the 
king  for  the  defence  of  his  person,  which  he  could  not  attain," 
says  Bowes  (December  21).  Lachlan  was  no  weakling,  but  he 
could  not  force  a  way  through  the  rioters.  He  was  not  timid, 
but  he  deemed  the  situation  so  grave  that  he  rode  post-haste  to 
Argyll  in  Stirling,  apparently  thinking  that  Clan  Gilzean  and  Clan 
Diarmaid  were  needed  for  the  royal  rescue.  These  facts,  neglected 
by  our  historians,  prove  that  there  was  a  veritable  appearance  of 
danger,  which  the  Presbyterian  writers  endeavour  to  deny.*^ 

Spottiswoode,  later  no  Presbyterian,  describes  a  scene  of  up- 
roar :  "  some  cried  to  arm,  others  to  bring  out  Haman " ;  and 
the  tumult  was  only  stilled  by  a  man  Wat,  who  with  a  guard  of 
craftsmen  kept  the  mob  from  assaulting  the  door  of  the  Tol- 
booth. Sir  Alexander  Home,  too,  the  Provost,  rose  from  a  bed 
of  sickness,  and  his  eloquence  had  the  pacifying  effect  of  a  vir 
pietate  gravis.  Calderwood  admits  that  "two  or  three"  came  to 
the  Tolbooth  yelling  for  Octavians  to  be  delivered  to  them.  He 
also  says  that  the  nobles  and  gentlemen  in  the  Kirk  went  out  in 
armour,  which  was  not  usually  worn  in  church.     The  armour  may 


JAMES   TERRIFIES   THE   BURGESSES.  419 

have  been  donned  by  the  town,  as  James  Melville  says,  after  a  cry 
of  a  popish  massacre  was  raised ;  for  there  was  a  report  that  Errol 
was  approaching  in  force,  and  other  wild  rumours.*''  Mar  went  to 
the  churchyard,  where  he  and  Lindsay  wrangled.  It  is  certain  that 
there  was  a  hubbub,  and  that  the  godly  were  in  arms,  with  Lindsay 
at  their  head.  The  immediate  cause  was  the  sermon  of  Bal- 
canquhel  and  the  action  of  Bruce.  Less  than  all  this  was  enough 
to  alarm  and  irritate  James.  He  bade  the  discontented  nobles  send 
in  their  grievances  in  writing,  and,  the  uproar  being  ended,  went  to 
Holyrood  with  the  city  magistrates.  About  five  o'clock  a  deputation 
came  to  Holyrood,  coolly  bidding  James  dismiss  his  Ministers,  but 
got  no  answer.  The  king,  "  being  misinformed  that  the  ministers 
had  stirred  up  the  town  to  that  tumult,  was  in  a  great  rage  that 
night  agamst  them  and  the  town."  This  is  not  very  surprising ; 
"the  doctrine  had  been  sounded  mightily"  for  weeks,  and  sermons 
less  numerous  had  caused  tumults  much  more  dangerous  in  times 
past.*^ 

Next  morning  (December  18)  the  noisy  townsfolk  learned  that 
the  Court  had  withdrawn  to  the  Palace  of  Linlithgow.  James  met 
Maclean  and  Argyll  on  his  way  as  they  returned  from  Stirling.  A 
royal  proclamation,  delivered  at  the  cross,  damped  the  civic  ardour. 
James  announced  that  a  treasonable  sermon  had  been  preached  at 
St  Giles's ;  an  assembly  of  nobles,  barons,  and  others  convoked ; 
that  the  ministers  and  gentlemen  had  broken  in  on  the  king  with 
violent  and  seditious  discourses ;  that  most  of  the  burgesses, 
*'  hounded  out "  by  the  preachers,  had  treasonably  armed  them- 
selves, and  endangered  the  lives  of  his  peaceful  majesty  and  others. 
The  Court  of  Session  and  the  Court  were  therefore  removed  from 
Edinburgh ;  he  bade  strangers  in  the  town  depart  in  six  hours,  and 
prohibited  them  from  convocatmg  anywhere  by  persuasion  of  the 
preachers  or  others.**'  This  measure  terrified  the  burgesses  with  fear 
of  loss  of  business,  caused  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  courtiers,  and 
of  all  who  sought  the  town  on  legal  affairs.  The  intrepid  Mr 
Robert  Bruce,  as  indomitable  as  his  royal  namesake,  did  not  despair 
of  the  Kirk.  We  have  seen  that  for  some  time  the  practical  head 
of  the  almost  Royal  House  of  Hamilton,  a  house  which  had  long 
wavered  between  Church  and  Kirk,  was  a  true  blue  Presbyterian. 
He  it  was  who  had  thrice  ingeminated  "  Then  are  we  all  gone," 
when  James  had  whispered  that  there  might  be  such  a  thing  as 
religious  toleration.     To  Lord  Hamilton  Mr  Bruce  instantly  applied 


420  MR   BRUCE  APPEALS   TO    HAMILTON. 

himself  (December  i8).  He  wrote  that,  after  many  wrongs,  the 
retention  of  stipends,  the  expulsion  of  the  Sixteen,  the  warding  of 
Black,  the  similar  threats  against  the  preachers  and  "  a  great 
number  of  our  flock,"  the  populace  had  taken  up  arms.  The  com- 
motion had  been  pacified  by  the  preachers  (though  really  the  Provost 
seems  to  have  deserved  the  credit).  The  godly  barons  and  others 
"have  convened  themselves,  and  taken  upon  them  the  patrocinie 
and  mediation  of  the  Kirk  and  her  cause."  Bruce  did  not  add 
that  the  godly  barons  had  convened  in  arms.  "  They  lack  a  chief 
nobleman  to  countenance  the  matter  against  these  councillors,  and 
with  one  consent  have  thought  it  meet  that  I  should  write  unto  your 
lordship."  Hamilton  was  therefore  prayed  to  come,  employ  his 
credit,  "  and  so  to  receive  the  honour  that  God  calls  unto  you." 
Four  preachers  signed  the  request.  If  Hamilton  had  complied  he 
would  have  disobeyed  the  royal  proclamation  against  assemblages 
convened  by  the  ministers. 

As  the  letter  was  on  its  way  (if  we  believe  Spottiswoode  and  the 
'  Register  of  the  Privy  Council,'  for  Calderwood  does  not  mention 
the  circumstance)  Mr  John  Welsh  preached  in  St  Giles's.  This 
celebrated  saint,  the  husband  of  Knox's  daughter,  Elizabeth,  and 
an  ancestor  of  Mrs  Thomas  Carlyle,  "  did  rail  pitifully  against  the 
king,  saying  that  he  was  possessed  with  a  devil."  He  used  the 
favourite  commonplace  of  the  Scottish  Liberals  :  the  king  was  like 
an  insane  father  of  a  family,  whom  his  sons  might  dutifully  disarm 
and  tie  hand  and  foot.  Mr  Welsh  in  early  youth  had  been  a  Border 
reiver,  and  was  of  a  high  temper.  According  to  Spottiswoode  (iii. 
34),  Hamilton  received  the  bearer  of  Bruce's  letter  well,  and  re- 
turned the  original  by  the  bearer.  This,  as  we  shall  later  see*'^  in 
the  case  of  Gowrie  and  Logan  of  Restalrig,  w^as  the  usual  precaution 
in  cases  of  treasonable  conspiracy.  Had  Hamilton  been  daring 
and  ambitious,  he  might  probably  have  overpowered  James  at  Lin- 
lithgow, though  Bruce  suggested  no  such  measure.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  had  a  copy  made  of  the  letter,  a  copy  "  vitiated  and 
adulterated."  In  this  copy  the  rioters  were  said  to  have  been 
"animated,  no  doubt,  by  the  Word  and  motion  of  God's  Spirit." 
The  phrase  of  Bruce  was,  "  the  people,  animated  as  effeirs,  partly  by 
the  Word  "  (the  preaching  ?)  "  and  violence  of  the  course  "  (the  king's 
proceedings),  "  took  arms."  Where  Bruce  wrote  that  Hamilton  was 
wanted  "  to  countenance  the  msilter  against  these  councillors ,"  the  copy 
omitted  "these  councillors."    The  clause  "employ  your  credit"  was 


"OF   ALL   FOOLS   THE   WORST.'  42 1 

also  omitted.  Bruce's  averment  that  the  preachers  had  quelled  the 
tumult  (as  they  did,  according  to  Melville)  was  also  left  out.  As  all 
these  changes  intensified  the  nature  of  the  invitation,  they  can  hardly 
be  attributed  to  mere  haste  and  inadvertence  in  the  copyist  em- 
ployed by  Hamilton.  Later  (December  27),  Bruce  wrote  a  letter 
of  remonstrance  to  Hamilton.  "I  am  assured  that  your  sister's 
son,  the  Earl  of  Huntly,  would  not  have  done  the  like  that  ye  have 
done,  and  if  I  failed  in  anything  in  that  letter,  I  failed  only  in  this, 
in  framing  my  pen  over  far  to  your  lordship's  humour,  which  I  knew 
to  be  ambitious."  Knowing  this,  Bruce  had  called  in  Hamilton,  and 
had  said  that  God  called  him  !  And  then  Bruce,  having  knowingly 
invited  an  ambitious  man,  and  attributed  the  invitation  to  the  Deity  ; 
having  summoned  a  prince  who,  failing  James  and  his  issue,  was 
nearest  the  crown,  expressed  surprise  that  "  the  king  takes  it,  as 
I  hear,  as  if  I  had  pressed  to  set  you  in  a  chair  foreanent  him. 
Surely  it  came  never  in  my  mind ;  and  of  all  fools  I  had  been  the 
worst,  if  so  I  had  done."  *^ 

Mr  Bruce's  excuses  are  inconsistent :  we  shall  see  other  examples 
of  his  logic  and  his  conduct,  in  the  affair  of  the  Gowrie  conspiracy. 
It  did  not  need  much  intelligence  to  see  that,  in  summoning  as 
a  leader  a  man  notoriously  ambitious,  and  by  birth  so  near  the 
throne,  Bruce  laid  himself  open  to  the  king's  construction  of  his 
action.  It  was  the  natural,  and  probably  the  correct  construction, 
and,  as  Bruce  saw,  was  replete  with  "  inconveniences "  to  himself 
"and  the  good  cause."  Spottiswoode  cites,  but  not  quite  verbally, 
Hamilton's  copy  of  Bruce's  letter.  But  the  sense  of  that  letter  itself 
is  sufficiently  patent.*^  Spottiswoode  may  be  condemned,  as  he  is 
by  Dr  M'Crie,  for  disloyalty  as  a  historian,  and  for  displaying  Pres- 
byterian zeal  during  the  troubles  in  December,  and  turning  his  coat 
in  January. ^^  All  the  accounts  of  the  tumult  are  naturally  coloured 
by  the  partisanship  of  the  narrators.  Spottiswoode  did  not  invent 
Welsh's  seditious  sermon,  of  which  Calderwood  says  nothing  (Sun- 
day, December  19),  though  he  cites  at  length  Bruce's  sermon.  Dr 
M'Crie  also  omits  the  inconvenient  eloquence  of  Mr  Welsh,  though 
it  is  embalmed  in  the  '  Register  of  the  Privy  Council.'  "  I  am 
heartily  sorry,"  said  Bruce,  later,  "  that  our  holy  and  gracious  cause 
should  be  so  obscured  by  this  late  tumult,"  which,  according  to  Dr 
M'Crie,  "  scarcely  deserves  the  name  of  a  riot."  "  I  had  rather," 
Bruce  said,  "  have  been  banished  Scotland  for  ever,  ere  one  drop  of 
their  blood  had  been  shed  that  day."     Bruce  insisted  now  on  the 


422      JAMES   RE-ENTERS   EDINBURGH   (JANUARY    i,    1597). 

virtue  of  patience  :  he  was  careful  to  discriminate  between  James 
and  his  advisers  :  he  mourned  the  defection  of  many  preachers  and 
others,  whence  we  may  gather  that  the  Brethren  had  not  been 
unanimous  during  the  troubles  of  the  last  two  months. 

All  this  was  very  well,  but  it  came  after  the  reading  to  an  excited 
populace  of  the  story  of  Haman,  and  it  came  after  Bruce's  invitation 
to  Hamilton.  If  the  ministers  were  all  for  peace  and  patience,  why 
did  one  of  them  read  inflammatory  scriptures  about  hanging  a  states- 
man and  massacring  malignants  ?  Was  the  leadership  of  the  godly 
by  an  ambitious  prince  such  as  Hamilton  likely  to  lead  to  public 
tranquillity  ?  Bruce's  pacific  sermon  came  two  days  too  late,  and 
was  not  reinforced  by  the  sermon  of  Welsh  on  a  devil-possessed  king, 
who  ought  to  be  tied  hand  and  foot.  The  tumult  was  caused  by  the 
exciting  sermons,  the  "  indignation  meeting,"  the  inflammatory  lessons 
from  the  Book  of  Esther,  the  exaggerated  rumours,  and  the  panic 
(whether  wilfully  stirred  or  not)  of  a  popish  massacre.  The  armed 
townsmen,  like  the  mob  of  Ephesus,  knew  not  wherefore  they  were 
come  together.  Some  were  intent  on  rescuing  the  king,  others  on 
hanging  a  few  Octavians.  Last  came  the  preachers'  dealing  with 
Hamilton,  which  wore  an  ill  face.  James  was  first  alarmed,  then 
angry,  finally  he  saw  his  chance,  and  the  tumult,  a  confused  brawl, 
gave  him  his  opportunity.  On  the  20th  four  ministers,  including 
Bruce,  were  ordered  into  Edinburgh  Castle,  then  held  by  Mar ; 
these  men,  with  Cranstoun,  were  to  appear  at  Linlithgow  on  Decem- 
ber 25.  Among  them  was  Andrew  Hart,  the  publisher,  described 
as  "  bookbinder."  Bruce  and  Balcanquhel  fled  to  England,  James 
Melville  concealed  the  other  prophets  in  Fife.^^  The  town  heard 
with  terror  tales  that  the  Borderers  were  to  sack  the  town.  "  They 
offered  to  put  all  in  the  king's  will,  both  concerning  Kirk  and 
policy,  to  save  their  goods." ^^  On  January  i,  1597,  the  Provost, 
Hume  of  North  Berwick,  who  pacified  the  riot,  and  the  bailies  made 
proffers  "  to  appoint  neither  magistrates  nor  ministers  in  future 
without  the  king's  approval,"  disavowing  the  tumult  as  provoked  by 
the  preachers.^^  The  king  entered  his  capital  on  January  i,  1597. 
He  forbade  assemblies  of  the  Kirk  in  Edinburgh.  He  forbade  the 
ministers  to  live  together  as  they  had  done,  "  in  the  circuit  of  a 
close."  He  asserted  the  power  to  make  ministers  preach,  or  desist, 
whenever  he  thought  fit.*^*  Threats  hung  over  the  town  :  the  meet- 
ing of  the  judges  was  summoned  to  Perth.  Welsh,  whose  sermon  of 
December  18  Calderwood  does  not  notice,  was  denounced  a  rebel : 


DEATH   OF   ARRAN.  423 

it  is  clear  that  Spottiswoode  took  the  words  of  the  sermon  from  the 
'Privy  Council  Register'  (v.  359). 

James  had  grasped  his  nettle,  and  it  had  crumpled  harmless  in 
his  hand.  All  the  proud  preachers  and  prophets,  the  bold  barons 
and  burgesses,  who  had  so  long  threatened  and  controlled  him, 
they  to  whom  he  had  truckled,  "  an  irresolute  ass,"  had  ceased  to 
be  terrible.  And  thus  was  avenged  the  old  Hammer  of  the 
Preachers,  the  bane  of  Morton,  the  discourted  Arran.  He  did  not 
live  to  see  the  day  of  triumph.  In  the  height  of  the  war  of  the 
Kirk  (November  1596)  he  appears  to  have  ridden  to  offer  James 
his  services.  Returning  to  Kyle,  he  was  warned  to  shun  the  feud 
of  Douglas  of  Parkhead,  nephew  of  Morton.  Arran  said  that  he 
would  not  leave  his  way  for  him  nor  for  all  of  the  name  of  Douglas  ! 
Parkhead  armed  a  company  and  mounted  :  he  overtook  Arran  at 
a  glen  called  Catslack  (there  is  a  Catslack  burn  on  Yarrow) 
and  ran  the  famous  Chancellor  through  the  body  with  a  spear 
(December   i,   1596).^^ 

So  in  the  notable  year  '96  perished  Arran,  "Captain  James 
Stewart,"  the  stately,  the  brave,  the  kinglike,  the  accomplished, 
but  avaricious,  cruel,  and  untrustworthy  glory  of  the  House  of 
Ochiltree.  He  "died  in  his  enemy's  day,"  and  did  not  behold 
the  triumph  which  would  have  gladdened  his  heart,  perhaps  restored 
his  power. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   XV. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  420,  421. 

-  Forbes- Leitli,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  pp.  226-229. 

^  See  the  scheme  in  Calderwood,  v.  421-433. 

*  See  '  Register  of  Privy  Council,'  v.,  Dr  Masson's  Introduction. 

'  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  711  ;  Tyller,  ix.  212.  Major  Hume  in  'Trea?on  and 
Plot '  may  be  consulted. 

•^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  706.  '  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  706,  707. 

"  Thorpe,  Calendar,  li.  708.  *  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  720-723. 

''"  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  723,  724.  ^^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  710. 

I'-i  M-Crie,  Life  of  Andrew  Melville,  pp.  483-4S5  ;  ii.  524-52S  (1S19). 

13  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  172.  '*  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  715,  716. 

1*  See  Mr  T.  G.  Law's  essay,  with  copies  of  the  documents,  in  '  Miscellany  of 
the  Scottish  History  Society,'  vol.  i.  No.  2. 

18  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  715.  "■  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  71S. 

18  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  720-723.  i"  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  310,  31 1. 

20  James  Melville,  pp.  368,  369.  21  Melville,  pp.  370,  371. 


424  NOTES. 

22  Caldervvood,  v.  443-448,  23  Tytler,  ix.  231. 

24  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  723  ;  Calderwood,  v.  450-453. 

•®  Calderwood,  v.  163.  -^  Thorpe,  Calendar,  ii.  723. 

^^  See  Dr  M'Crie's  'Andrew  Melville,'  i.  295-302  (1819). 

^  Life  of  Andrew  Melville,  i.  295-298.  -^  Calderwood,  v.  458. 

^°  M'Crie,  Andrew  Melville,  loc  cit.  ^'  Calderwood,  v.  458. 

32  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  326.  ^^  Calderwood,  v.  463. 

3*  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  332-334,  336. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  469.  '^  Calderwood,  v.  482. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  4S6.  ^^  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  340-342. 

3"  Calderwood,  v.  496,  note.  •*"  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  348. 

^1  Calderwood,  v.  501.  ^-  Calderwood,  v.  512. 

**  Nicolson  to  R.  Cecil,  December  21,  State  Papers,  Scot.,  Eliz.,  MS.,  vol. 
lix.  No.  90.  Bowes  to  Robert  Cecil,  December  21,  1596,  State  Papers,  Scot., 
Eliz.,  MS.,  vol.  lix.  No.  88.  For  James's  version  see  'Privy  Council  Register,' 
V.  362,  363. 

**  Melville,  p.  517. 

^  Calderwood,  v.  510-514;  Spottiswoode,  iii.  27-32. 

46  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  349-352. 

'*''  See  Appendix  B.,  "  Logan  of  Restalrig  and  the  Cowrie  Conspiracy." 

*8  Calderwood,  v.  515,  534,  535. 

■^^  Mr  Tytler,  ix.  250,  251,  also  cites  this  copy  from  a  Warrender  manuscript. 

^^  M'Crie's  Andrew  Melville,  pp.  194,  195,  and  notes  ;  ii.  94,  95  notes  (1819). 

*^  Calderwood,  v.  520,  521  ;  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  353. 

^^  Calderwood,  v.  531.  ^^  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  356. 

54  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  357  ;  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iv.  107. 

55  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  360,  361,  and  note  I. 


425 


CHAPTER     XVI, 

JAMES    ON    ILL    TERMS    WITH    ENGLAND. 
1597-160O. 

The  preachers  never  recovered  their  supremacy  in  James's  lifetime, 
but  they  never  were  thoroughly  subdued.  There  survived  a  remnant, 
holding  tenaciously  to  the  old,  impossible,  theocratic  ideals  ;  and  in 
a  later  generation  they  too  had  their  hour  of  triumph.  To  us  who 
see  the  past  in  a  perspective  unattainable  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
it  is  plain  enough  that  two  ideas  were  destined  to  prevail — toleration 
in  religion,  and  democracy  in  politics.  But  under  James  the  demo- 
cratic idea,  and  the  idea  of  toleration,  occupied  opposite  camps. 
The  preachers,  and  their  representatives  in  the  universities,  at  least 
in  St  Andrews,  taught  the  Radical  opinions  of  George  Buchanan. 
They  also  upheld  (except  when  an  opposite  theory  suited  their 
purposes)  that  the  ministers  should  be  chosen  by  their  flocks, — a 
process  which,  following  their  line  of  argument,  put  the  supreme 
power  of  the  State  into  the  hands  of  inspired  persons  elected  by  the 
votes  of  popular  constituencies.  A  theocratic  democracy  was  thus 
arranged  for,  but  we  should  greatly  misjudge  the  Brethren  if  we 
thought  that  they  were  mere  believers  in  majorities.  As  against  the 
greater  number  of  votes,  the  votes  of  "the  best"  ought  to  prevail, 
and  "the  best"  were  the  minority  who  would  go  all  lengths  with 
the  preachers.  This  rather  confused  theologico-political  theory  and 
practice  obtained  its  opportunity  from  the  absence  of  a  really  repre- 
sentative and  constitutional  Parliament  in  Scotland.  In  place  of 
such  a  body,  the  Kirk  had  her  kirk-sessions,  presbyteries,  synods, 
and  General  Assemblies.  Their  power  was  enormous,  and  touched 
on  military  affairs  as  well  as  on  politics  and  jurisdiction.  But  the 
power  reposed  on  the  belief  in  "  prophets,"  and  in  direct  inspiration. 


426  TOLERATION   AND   DEMOCRACY. 

Moreover,  as  must  always  have  been  suspected,  and  as  will  soon  be 
seen,  the  ruling  assemblies  of  the  Kirk  had  not  represented  the  full 
array  of  presbyteries  and  Presbyterians.  Power  had  lain  in  the 
hands  chiefly  of  the  preachers  of  Edinburgh  and  the  Lothians, 
of  Fife  and  Ayrshire,  always  the  centres  of  the  Covenanting  forces 
in  later  days.  In  these  regions  the  preachers  were  the  most  learned, 
the  most  resolute,  and  the  most  pugnacious.  They,  and  their  lay 
associates,  lairds  and  burgesses,  had  throughout  been  the  power 
behind  and  above  the  throne,  the  ijnperium  in  imperio.  But  these 
regions  probably  had  not  a  majority  of  the  ministers,  though,  living 
near  the  capital,  they  could  soon  be  on  the  spot  when  politics  called 
for  their  presence.  The  ministers  of  remoter  parishes,  men  much 
less  zealous,  were  neither  so  rich  nor,  in  the  conditions  of  travelling, 
was  it  nearly  so  easy  for  them  to  concentrate  south  of  Forth.  Such 
was  the  theocratic  democracy  :  it  did  not  rest  on  a  mere  majority  of 
the  votes  of  members  of  the  Kirk. 

The  doctrine  most  vigorously  held  by  this  theocratic  and,  in  its 
way,  democratic  party,  was  the  doctrine  of  religious  intolerance. 
The  leaders,  being  inspired  interpreters  of  the  Word,  gave  out  that, 
according  to  the  Word,  idolaters  must  be  extirpated.  The  theory, 
of  course,  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Kirk  :  the  old  Church,  when  in 
power,  had  lit  her  fires  and  issued  her  censures.  But  a  secular 
Government  could  not  easily  acquiesce  in  the  idea  of  extirpation. 
Priests  or  preachers  might  have  their  way  now  and  again,  but  the 
Crown  was  never  whole-hearted  in  persecution,  nor  were  the  nobles. 
On  this  point  the  inspired  certainties  of  the  Brethren  always  en- 
countered the  opposition  of  the  State  :  had  James  been  a  whole- 
hearted bloody  persecutor,  he  might  have  had  comparatively  little 
trouble  with  the  Kirk.  They  chiefly  quarrelled  over  his  policy 
towards  the  Catholic  earls  and  Catholic  States,  over  his  failure  to 
exterminate  Jesuits  and  other  emissaries  of  Rome. 

Thus  the  two  tendencies  which  had  the  future  on  their  side — 
toleration  (of  a  kind)  and  democracy  (of  a  sort) — were  at  open  war, 
entailing  the  war  of  Kirk  and  King.  The  conflict  was  inevitable. 
Perhaps  human  wisdom  could  not  have  found  a  compromise,  a 
modus  vivendi,  between  the  inspired  prophets  on  one  hand  and  the 
existence  of  a  free  secular  State  on  the  other.  The  country  had  to 
be  governed  either  by  the  Crown  or  by  the  pulpit.  No  modern 
observer  can  applaud  the  method  by  which  James,  for  his  day, 
gradually   secured   the   supremacy  of  the  Crown.     His   opponents 


I 


VI CT^   CAUSAt..  427 

were  morally  much  superior  to  himself  and  to  many  of  his  lay 
cidvisers.  But  their  unhappy  belief  in  their  own  inspiration  made 
them  irreconcilable.  James  was  obliged  to  gain  his  end  (and 
freedom  from  clerical  dictation  is  a  respectable  end)  by  employing 
the  low  means  of  working  on  popular  representatives  by  what,  in  the 
style  of  democracy,  is  termed  "lobbying,"  "wire-pulling,"  and  so 
forth.  To  "lobby"  and  "wire-pull"  among  prophets,  such  was  his 
policy.  It  could  not  but  follow  that  the  least  scrupulous  of  the 
prophets  were  the  most  easily  to  be  secured  by  such  methods. 
The  others,  the  precise,  the  men  of  the  old  rock,  held  aloof  from 
the  preachers  whom  James  selected,  and  branded  them  as  apostates. 
The  day  of  the  Remnant  came  at  last,  and  they  triumphed  over 
Spottiswoode  as  they  had  triumphed  over  Adamson.  But  these 
things  "  lay  on  the  knees  of  the  gods." 

James  himself,  when  the  preachers  became  but  weak  allies  of 
discontented  nobles,  was  able  to  put  forth  his  cherished  theory 
of  royal  absolutism,  which  was  encouraged  by  the  higher  clergy 
of  England  and  the  despotic  tradition  of  the  Tudors.  Thus  all 
the  elements  necessary  for  the  explosion  of  the  Covenant  and  the 
Great  Rebellion  were  being  accumulated.  Forces  were  gathering 
which,  in  the  long  shock  and  collision  of  a  century,  destroyed  each 
other,  leaving  the  State  open  to  the  advance  of  democracy,  no  longer 
theocratic,  and  of  toleration.  It  is  hard  for  us  to  see  how,  in  the 
conditions  of  Scotland  after  the  Reformation,  these  things  could 
have  been  ordered  otherwise.  The  pretensions  of  preachers  and 
kmgs  were  alike  intolerable  and  intolerant :  they  were  compelled 
to  clash,  to  break  each  other  and  be  broken.  Modern  sympathies 
are  apt  to  be  with  the  force  which  on  each  occasion  has  the  worse 
in  the  encounter.  No  sooner  are  the  prophets  down  than  their 
sufferings  and  their  courage  appeal  to  us  ;  no  sooner  has  the  Kirk 
recovered  her  tyranny  than  the  cause  of  human  freedom  claims  our 
regard.  Not  easily  to-day  can  the  observer  of  the  past  be  either 
Cavalier  or  Covenanter,  Kirk's  man  or  king's  man.  Either  cause  is 
victa  causa :  both  ideals  perished  in  the  century  of  strife  :  it  is  but  a 
sentiment  that  makes  a  few  cherish  the  White  Rose  or  the  Blue 
Banner. 

As  far  as  internal  politics  were  concerned,  the  year  1597  was 
passed  by  James,  first  in  securing  a  hold  over  the  Brethren,  next  in 
reconciling  the  Catholic  earls  with  the  Kirk.  His  method  as  regards 
the  former  object  was  first  to  terrify  by  threats, — all  Edinburgh  was 


428  THE   SYNOD   OF    FIFE. 

to  be  put  to  the  horn,  her  ministers  were  to  be  treated  as  rebels, — 
and  then  to  allow  the  town  to  return  into  his  favour,  and  to  relax  his 
measures  against  the  town  preachers.  He  next  summoned  a  con- 
vention of  the  Kirk  and  the  Estates  to  meet  at  Perth  on  the  last  day 
of  February.  The  northern  ministers  found  Perth  far  more  accessible 
than  Edinburgh ;  indeed,  in  fairness  to  them,  Perth  was  the  most 
suitable,  as  the  most  central,  place  of  meeting.  James  next  circu- 
lated a  paper  of  fifty-five  questions,  to  which  the  assembled  divines 
were  to  reply.  The  queries  bore  on  Church  government,  and  the 
Synod  of  Fife  raised  a  legal  objection.  No  presbytery  had  the  right 
to  send  commissioners  to  discuss  the  conclusions  already  sanctioned 
by  a  General  Assembly,  any  more  than  a  burgh  could  legally  call  in 
controversy  an  Act  of  Parliament.  James's  practical  reply  was  to 
induce  the  Brethren  at  Perth  to  recognise  themselves  as  an  authentic 
General  Assembly,  a  thing  not  accepted  by  the  more  precise.  The 
Fife  synod  insisted  that  Church  government  can  only  be  regulated 
by  the  Word,  and  that  only  the  pastors  and  doctors  of  the  Kirk  can 
show  what  God's  will,  in  the  Word,  really  is.  Now  they  had 
established  that  point  already,  once  for  all.  Their  motto  was, 
"  Nolumus  leges  Ecclesiae  Scoticanae  mutari " ;  but,  like  all  other 
laws,  those  of  the  Kirk  proved  to  be  mutable.^  The  questions 
are  said  to  have  been  drawn  up  by  Lindsay  the  Octavian.  To  give 
them  at  full  length  is  not  possible.  To  the  first,  "May  not  the 
matters  of  the  external  government  of  the  Kirk  be  discussed  without 
injury  to  faith  and  religion?"  the  Fife  synod  said  "No."  As  to 
whether  the  king  alone,  or  the  Kirk  alone,  or  both,  have  power 
to  modify  the  external  government  of  the  Church,  the  synod  declared 
that  the  pastors  and  doctors  were  the  ordinary,  and  prophets  the 
extraordinary,  authorities,  whose  decisions  kings  must  ratify  and 
sanction.  This  naturally  raises  the  question,  How  are  we  to  know 
a  prophet  when  we  see  one  ?  The  only  answer  is,  that  God  endows 
a  prophet  with  extraordinary  gifts,  which  are  not  specified.  The 
gift  of  preaching  is  obviously  one,  and  probably  the  faculty  of  pre- 
monition (in  a  layman  "second-sight,"  and  punishable  as  witch- 
craft) is  another  "extraordinary  gift"  and  note  of  a  genuine 
prophet.  Wishart,  Knox,  Peden,  and  a  number  of  others  had 
this  note  of  the  prophet. 

"The  principles  then  laid  down"  by  the  Fife  synod  "were 
incompatible  with  the  existence  of  civil  government,"  says  Mr 
Tytler.     The  right  of  public  denunciation  of  individuals  from  the 


ASSEMBLY   OF   PERTH    (1597).  429 

pulpit  was  also  claimed.  The  king  had  no  right  to  annul  an  unjust 
sentence  of  excommunication.  An  interesting  question  was,  "  Is 
not  the  consent  of  the  majority  of  the  flock,  and  also  of  the  patron, 
necessary  in  the  election  of  a  pastor?"  The  election,  we  learn 
from  the  reply,  should  be  made  by  pastors  and  doctors,  and  the 
congregation  and  patron  "  should  give  their  consent  and  protection." 
The  selected  candidate,  if  unpopular,  was  apt  to  need  all  the 
protection  he  could  get.^ 

The  commissioners  from  the  presbyteries  met  at  Perth,  and  James 
Melville  gives  a  lively  account  of  what  he  witnessed  there.  The 
ministers  of  the  North  were  gathered  in  unwonted  numbers,  "and 
every  one  greater  courtiers  than  another."  Flocks  of  preachers 
were  passing  in  and  out  of  the  king's  palace,  "  finding  fault  with 
the  ministers  of  the  South,  and  the  Popery  of  Edinburgh."  James 
Melville  had  a  friend,  a  fellow-soldier  of  the  Kirk,  who  was  his  bed- 
fellow. The  king  "  captured "  this  evangelist,  detained  him  from 
Melville's  couch,  and  converted  him  in  the  midnight  hours, 
which  were  probably  not  uncheered  with  the  wines  of  Southern 
France.  Next  day  Melville's  bedfellow  opposed  him  in  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  meeting,  and  he  quietly  withdrew  himself  from 
the  town.  His  noisy  brother,  Andrew,  was  detained  at  St  Andrews 
by  a  rectorial  election.  The  end  of  all  was,  after  some  demur,  that 
the  Assembly  voted  itself  a  genuine  Assembly,  and  that  the  king 
carried  his  points.  He  might,  it  was  agreed,  propose  modifications 
in  Church  government ;  no  unusual  conventions  were  to  be  called 
without  his  permission  ;  the  Acts  of  Parliament  or  of  Privy  Council 
were  not  to  be  preached  about ;  no  ministers  in  the  great  towns 
were  to  be  appointed  without  the  consent  of  the  king  and  the  flock ; 
and  nobody,  as  a  rule,  was  to  be  personally  attacked  from  the 
pulpit.2  The  Cathohc  earls  were  to  discuss  with  chosen  ministers 
and  be  converted,  or  leave  the  country. 

While  the  process  of  conversion  was  going  on,  Barclay  of  Lady- 
land  (who,  with  Balcarres,  had  been  intriguing  in  Spain  and  Italy) 
tried  to  seize  Ailsa  Craig,  off  Ballantrae  in  Ayrshire,  and  use  it 
as  a  place  of  arms  for  Spain,  Being  discovered  by  Mr  Andrew 
Knox,  and  in  danger  of  capture,  he  drowned  himself.  Bowes  had 
for  months  given  warnings  of  "plottings  with  Spain,"*  Ladyland 
had  returned  thence  in  February.  By  July  4  he  had  lost  his  life, 
and  Huntly  and  Errol,  reconciled  to  the  Kirk,  had  been  absolved 
from  excommunication.^     The  Kirk  had  done  her  best  to  make  the 


430  SUBMISSION   OF   HUNTLY   AND   ERROL. 

conversion  genuine.  Preachers  had  been  appointed  as  members  of 
the  households  of  the  proselytes,  "  to  read  and  interpret  Scripture 
ordinarily  at  their  tables,''  and  to  catechise  their  families.  Mr  Hill 
Burton  regarded  these  intrusions  as  a  severe  process  of  torture,  and 
"permanent  tormentors  were  to  be  put  en  a  permanent  establish- 
ment at  the  expense  of  their  victmis."  We  know  how  Father 
Gordon,  Huntly's  uncle,  regarded  the  matter.  He  landed  in  the 
North  while  the  process  of  conversion  was  going  forward,  and 
found  Huntly  a  sore  altered  man.  The  Catholics  everywhere 
were  flocking  into  the  Kirk.  Huntly  could  not  arrest  (as  was 
his  legal  duty)  his  uncle  and  old  friend,  who  was  put  under  the 
boycott  of  excommunication.  A  thousand  pieces  of  gold  were 
offered  for  his  head ;  but  Huntly  obtained  a  remission,  promising 
to  send  Gordon  out  of  the  country.  He  left  Aberdeen,  after 
holding  a  friendly  discussion  with  the  local  ministers.  In  1599 
he  returned,  and  had  some  interesting  adventures.  On  the  whole, 
the  submission  of  Huntly  and  Errol  did  much  to  break  down  the 
Catholicism  of  the  north-east  of  Scotland.*^ 

The  Old  Kirk  of  Aberdeen  on  June  26  was  the  scene  of  the 
reconciliation.  The  decisions  of  Perth  had  been  ratified  by  a 
General  Assembly  at  Dundee  in  May,  after  an  uproarious  scene 
between  the  king  and  Andrew  Melville.  They  shouted  at  each 
other,  "they  heckled  on  till  all  the  house  and  close  both  heard, 
mickle  of  a  large  hour."  The  king  was  the  first  to  recover  his 
temper."  Fourteen  king's  commissioners,  a  kind  of  clerical  Lords 
of  the  Articles,  were  selected  ;  they  removed  Black  and  another 
preacher  from  St  Andrews,  and  Andrew  Melville,  deprived  of  the 
rectorship,  was  made  Dean  of  the  Faculty  of  Theology.^  The  new- 
board  of  commissioners,  "  both  in  General  Assemblies  and  without, 
rule  all,"  says  Melville.  But  the  Edinburgh  preachers  were  re- 
stored to  their  flocks,  "with  a  new  imposition  of  hands,"  in 
the  case  of  the  preacher  Robert  Bruce,  a  ceremony  not  favoured 
by  the  earliest  Reformers.  An  earthquake  in  the  North  was 
reckoned  a  judgment  on  the  king,  a  new  Uzziah ;  but  it  never 
came  near  him,  nor  was  he  smitten  with  leprosy,  like  his  Jewish 
prototype.  Later  (February  25,  1598),  an  eclipse  of  the  sun 
caused  the  deaths  of  four  notable  lights  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland, — 
at  least  James  Melville  mentions  these  as  "notable  effects  of  this 
eclipse."  Melville  knew  the  cause  of  eclipses  as  well  as  we  do; 
about  the  effects  he  was  much  more  fully  informed.^      Yet  there 


WITCH-BURNINGS.  43 1 

was  difference  of  opinion.  Among  the  extinguished  lights  was 
Thomas  Buchanan.  Now  he  was  killed,  as  Calderwood  has  told 
us,  by  being  dragged  along  the  road,  after  a  fall  from  his  horse, 
for  which  the  eclipse  was  not  responsible.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  old  and  very  natural  superstitious  beliefs  (natural  while  the 
real  causes  of  the  phenomenon  were  unknown)  survived  among  men 
of  learning,  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  science  of  the  subject. 

The  politics  of  1597,  ecclesiastical  matters  apart,  were  relatively 
tranquil.  The  Octavians  resigned  their  thankless  office,  and  the 
royal  finances  presently  fell  into  the  usual  chaos  (January  11, 
1597)-^''  Border  affairs  were  unquiet:  Elizabeth  kept  demanding 
the  surrender  of  Cessford  and  Buccleuch,  and  for  a  brief  while 
(October  1597-February  1598)  Buccleuch  did  "render  himself" 
across  the  Marches.^^  Sir  William  Bowes  succeeded  the  veteran 
Bowes  as  English  Ambassador,  old  Bowes  dying  in  November, 
after  a  career  of  mischievous  treacheries  against  the  Court  to  which 
he  was  accredited.  In  July  James  had  the  pleasure  of  burning  a 
number  of  witches  at  St  Andrews.^^  One  St  Andrews  witch,  of  a 
rather  earlier  date  {pb.  1588),  seems  to  have  been  merely  a  dealer 
in  folk-medicine.  She  doctored  Archbishop  Adamson  with  "  ewe- 
milk  and  claret  wine,"  though  a  satirist,  Sempill,  describes  her  as 
"  Ane  carling  of  the  Quene  of  Phareis,"  a  comrade  of  "  the  faery 
queen,  Proserpina."  The  witches  burned  in  July  1597  were  from 
Pittenweem.  The  preachers  had  sense  enough  to  deprecate  the 
carrying  of  a  witch  about  the  country  to  detect  other  witches  by 
bodily  marks  to  her  known.  This  method  later  led  to  horrible 
cruelties,  and  the  witch  -  finder  was  herself  convicted  of  fraud. 
James  was  acting  precisely  in  the  fashion  of  T'chaka  and  other 
Zulu  kings.  Later,  in  England,  Bishop  Jewel  fell  in  with  James's 
notions  about  witchcraft.  Bancroft,  on  the  other  hand,  he  who 
dealt  so  hardly  with  Scottish  Presbyterian  eloquence,  treated  witches 
and  witch-finders  with  equal  disdain,  "  such  as  could  start  a  devil 
in  a  lane  as  soon  as  a  hare  in  Waltham  forest."  The  witnesses 
were  "giddy,  idle,  lunatick,  illuminate,  holy  spectators  of  both 
sexes,  and  specially  a  sisternity  of  nimps,  mops,  and  idle  holy 
women,  that  did  grace  the  devil  with  their  idle  holy  presence." 
Thus  were  bishops  divided,  the  most  anti-Puritan  being  the  most 
averse  to  witch-hunting. 

A  historian  of  the  Kirk,  Principal  Lee,  has  made  the  odd  sug- 
gestion that  James's  zeal  against  witches,  like  his  love  of  Episcopacy, 


43-  WITCH-BURNINGS. 

"  was  assumed  for  the  purpose  of  ingratiating  himself  with  the  Eng- 
lish nation,  where  a  passion  for  the  wonderful  has  always  been  much 
stronger  than  in  this  northern  climate,"  where  second-sight  is  still 
common,  and  fairies  .are  hoih  seen  and  heard  unto  this  day.  The 
truth  i.i.  tht..  Jamer  would  have  ingratiated  himself  with  Elizabeth  on 
many  an  occasion  by  being  a  devout  Presbyterian.  In  lingland  he 
would,  possibly  enough,  have  ingratiated  himself  best  by  at  least 
favouring  the  Puritans.  He  wanted  bishops  merely  to  keep  the 
preachers  in  their  place,  and  witchcraft  appealed  to  his  acute  and 
inquiring  but  ill-balanced  mind.  Even  John  Wesley  held  that  dis- 
l;elicf  in  witches  was  the  thin  end  of  the  wedge  of  infidelity.  What 
went  under  the  name  of  witchcraft  was  a  web  of  fraud,  folk-medicine, 
fairy  tale,  hysteria,  and  hypnotic  suggestion,  including  physical  and 
psychological  phenomena  still  unclassified.  The  Bible  undeniably 
regarded  some  of  these  phenomena  as  the  result  of  "possession  "  by 
intelligent  discarnate  entities.  To  disbelieve  the  Bible  was  flat 
atheism,  so  James  and  the  preachers  agreed  in  holding.  In  France 
in  1 8 50- 1 854  some  men  of  science,  and  several  ecclesiastics,  fell 
back  on  James's  theory  when  confronted  with  talking- tables  and 
clairvoyants.-'^ 

On  the  other  hand  were  laughing  and  humane  sceptics,  like 
Reginald  Scot.  James  took  the  line  which  the  religion  of  the 
age  and  his  constitutional  bias  made  him  select,  the  line  of  Richard 
Baxter,  Glanvil,  and  Cotton  Mather.  His  performances,  so  far,  were 
such  as  the  Kirk  recommended.  If,  like  Saul,  he  resisted  the 
pi()l)hcts,  like  Saul  he  persecuted  witches.  A  hideous  example 
of  the  manners  of  the  age  has  been  published  by  Mr  Hay  Fleming. 
In  1598  the  laird  of  Lathocker,  near  St  Andrews,  was  in  trouble 
about  a  murder.  At  the  same  date,  or  shortly  afterwards,  the  min- 
ister of  Crail,  by  order  of  the  presbytery,  captured  a  woman  suspected 
of  witchcraft,  "whom  the  laird  of  Lathocker  took  from  him,  and 
carried  her  to  his  place  of  Lathocker,  and  there  tortured  her,  whereby 
she  is  now  impotent,  and  may  not  labour  for  her  living  as  she  was 
wont."^*  In  this  folly  of  witch -burning,  neither  the  Church  of 
Rome,  the  Church  of  England,  nor  the  Church  of  Scotland  can  throw 
the  first  stone  at  sister  sinners.  In  Scotland,  however,  witch  per- 
.secution  became  infinitely  more  frequent  and  stringent  after  the 
Reformation,  as  part  of  inquisitorial  discipline  in  general.  Just 
after  James's  witch-burnings  at  St  Andrews  in  July  1597,  the  Privy 
Council  discharged   the  commissions  of  justiciary  against  witches, 


EPISCOPACY    RESTORED   (1598).  433 

"understanding  by  the  complaints  of  divers  his  Hiphness's  lieges 
that  great  danger  may  ensue  to  honest  and  famous"  (reputable) 
"  persons "  under  the  powers  of  tliese  fX)mmissioners.^''  Spottis- 
woodc  explains  tins  diseliarge  by  the  case  of  Margaret  Atkin,  who, 
under  torture,  confessed  to  witchcrafl,  and  put  herself  forward  as  a 
"  smeller  out  of  witches,"  in  the  Zulu  phrase.  She  knew  them  by  a 
mark  in  the  eye ;  but  wlien  women  whom  she  had  detected  were 
brought  before  her  in  disguise,  so  that  she  failed  to  recognise  them, 
she  acquitted  them.  Especially  at  (llasgow  innocent  women  were 
put  to  death  "through  the  credulity  of  the  minister,  Mr  John  ( !ow- 
per."  Brought  back  to  Fife,  Margaret  Atkin  confessed  that  her 
previous  confession,  and  her  detections,  were  all  etpially  false,  and 
slu;  was  executed.  But  this  did  not  put  a  stoj)  to  the  witrlvtri.-ils 
and  witch-burnings,  an  epidemic  more  permanent  than  lliai  wiii(  li 
devastated  Salem  in  America  a  century  later.'" 

In  November  and  December  James  himself  visited  tlie  liorders 
and  hanged  a  number  of  reivers.^^  In  December  a  Parliament 
met,  during  a  feud  between  Hamilton  and  Lennox,  to  whom  the 
Clastle  of  Dumbarton,  the  old  strengtii  of  his  House,  previously  in 
lianiillon's  liands,  w.is  now  intrusted.  James  delivered  an  or.ilion 
about  his  mother's  wrongs  and  his  own.  It  needed  sf)ine  lack  of 
shame  to  grumble  that  the  slayer  of  the  mother  did  not  pay  the 
pension  of  the  son.  A  grant  of  200,000  marks  was  voted  by 
the  Estates.'" 

The  great  affair  was  the  covert  nMntrodurtion  of  iCpiscopnry. 
The  king's  commissioners  of  tlie  (leneral  Assembly,  fourlecii  in 
number,  petitioned  thai  ministers  migiit  vote  in  I'ariiament.  ( "nii- 
sequenlly  holders  of  prelatic  titles  (preachers  so  promoted  by  the 
king)  were  permitted  to  sit  anrl  vote  with  liie  Instates.'"  A  Ge-neral 
Assenil)ly  was  proclaimed  for  March  159S.  James  reconciled  lum- 
self  with  the  lulinburgli  preachers,  who  in  future  were  to  have  each 
his  separate  flock,  which  did  not  suit  their  collective  [)olicy.  In 
the  same  way  they  had  already  been  turned  out  of  their  "close," 
where  they  used  to  live  conveniently  ass(;mbled.  James  exi)lained 
that  he  did  not  mean  to  introduce  "jjapistical  or  Anglican  bishop- 
ing,"  but  merely  to  admit  the  best  ministers,  chosen  by  the  (leneral 
Assembly,  to  represent  the  Kirk  in  the  national  council.  Andrew 
Melville  had  not  been  allowed  to  take  part  in  the  Assembly,  and  the 
northern  preachers  outvoted  the  Brethren  of  Eife  and  the  Lotliians 
only  by  a  majority  of  ten.'^"     Thus  were  the  "  horns  of  the  mitre," 

vr)L.   II.  2  E 


434  IRISH   COMPLICATIONS   (1598)- 

allowed  to  peep  forth;  thus,  as  the  godly  said,  was  the  Trojan 
horse  of  Episcopacy  brought  within  the  walls  of  our  Zion. 

The  new  ecclesiastical  members  of  Parliament  were  to  be  fifty- 
one  in  number,  partly  chosen  by  the  king,  partly  by  the  General 
Assembly.  Later  (March  1600)  the  king  was  to  choose  each  bishop 
out  of  a  list  of  six,  selected  by  the  Kirk.  Each  was  to  attend  to 
his  own  "  flock  "  ;  they  were  to  exercise  no  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
and  were  to  be  amenable  to  the  jurisdiction  of  presbyteries  and 
General  AssembUes.  To  avoid  prejudice,  they  were  only  styled 
"commissioners."  Meanwhile,  in  1598,  at  Dundee,  the  godly  had 
one  safe  victim,  the  witch.  It  was  reported  that  civil  magistrates 
discharged  persons  convicted  of  witchcraft.  "Therefore  the 
Assembly  ordains  that,  in  all  time  coming,  the  presbytery  proceed 
in  all  severity  with  their  censures  "  (excommunication  ?)  "  against 
such  magistrates  as  shall  set  at  liberty  any  person  or  persons  con- 
victed of  witchcraft  hereafter."  The  common-sense  and  humanity 
of  the  laity  was  not  to  override  the  cruel  fanaticism  of  the  preachers. 
They  objected,  indeed,  to  setting  a  witch  to  catch  a  witch,  because 
that  was  using  Satan  against  himself,  a  disreputable  king's  evidence 
enough.  They  also  tried  to  check  commercial  intercourse  with 
Spain,  an  idolatrous  country.^^  But,  too  clearly,  the  great  days  of 
the  Kirk  were  over  for  a  while. 

James  had  complained  grievously  of  Elizabeth  in  the  Parliament 
of  December  1597.  The  relations  between  the  two  Crowns  con- 
tinued to  be  uneasy.  They  were  complicated  by  the  vexed  affairs 
of  the  Western  Isles  and  Highlands.  For  long  Elizabeth  had  been 
trying  to  engage  the  brave  and  accomplished  Maclean  of  Duart, 
the  hero  of  Glenrinnes  fight,  to  aid  her  against  her  Irish  rebel, 
Tyrone.  But  Elizabeth  would  promise  and  not  pay.  Maclean 
muttered  that  he  would  take  his  men  where  they  would  be  wel- 
comed, probably  by  the  Irish  and  their  Spanish  allies.  All  the 
Macdonald  and  Macleod  country  was  embroiled  in  the  private  wars 
and  treacherous  diplomacies  of  the  chiefs.  One  of  these,  James 
Macdonald  of  Dunluce,  was  a  man  of  the  world  at  Holyrood,  a 
determined  and  traitorous  ruffian  in  the  heather.  He  had  been 
aiding  Elizabeth's  Irish  rebels  (who  knew  him  as  "  Macsorley  "),  and 
Robert  Cecil  bade  William  Bowes  to  remonstrate  with  the  king  for 
admitting  Dunluce  to  his  presence,  also  for  secret  dealing  with 
Tyrone  (January  4,  1598).^^  He  had  a  claim,  a  baseless  one,  on 
Kintyre  and  Isla,  held  by  Angus  Macdonald,  his  father.     The  king 


I 


CELTS   REFUSE   RENT.  43  S 

made  the  handsome  freebooter  a  knight ;  he  might  be  useful  some 
day. 

At  this  time,  and  in  the  Parliament  of  December  1597,  High- 
land affairs  had  been  taken  in  hand.  The  natives  did  not  pay 
their  crown-rents,  and  the  chiefs  were  bidden  to  exhibit  their  title- 
deeds  on  May  15,  1598,  and  to  give  security  for  law  and  order. 
Disobedience  was  to  entail  forfeiture  :  obedience  was  difficult  or 
impossible.  "  Sheepskin  titles  "  were  rare  among  the  Celts.  The 
Court  probably  hoped  to  reap  forfeitures,  but  the  claymore  was  apt 
(as  James  found)  to  engross  charters  on  the  bodies  of  Lowland 
claimants.  The  Lewes  and  other  Macleod  lands  were  granted  to  a 
kind  of  chartered  company  which  had  occasion  to  rue  its  bargain. 
Meanwhile,  in  a  series  of  feuds,  Macallester  of  Loupe  killed  his 
guardian,  and  was  backed  by  Dunluce,  who  burned  a  house  in 
which  Loupe's  foes  were,  and  also  his  own  father,  Macdonald  of 
Dunyveg.  He  imprisoned  Dunyveg,  and  was  put  at  by  James,  but 
made  his  peace.  Such  was  the  Macsorley  (Dunluce)  whom  Eliz- 
abeth thought  an  ill  companion  for  James.  She  was  also  vexed  by 
his  words  in  Parliament,  and  he  was  irritated  by  Doleman's  (that  is, 
Father  Parsons')  book  in  favour  of  a  Spanish  successor  to  the  crown 
of  England.  He  excused  himself  on  all  counts  of  Elizabeth's  indict- 
ment (February  i,  1598).  He  engaged,  however,  an  Irishman, 
Quin  or  Gwyn,  to  write  in  favour  of  his  title,  and  also  to  scourge 
the  author  of  the  peccant  'Faery  Queen.'^^  Mr  Bruce,  the  preacher, 
at  this  time  much  out  of  James's  favour,  offered  to  reveal  "  certain 
dangerous  practices  "  to  Robert  Cecil,  who  guaranteed  a  recompense. 
(This  appears  to  be  the  Protestant  Bruce,  not  the  Catholic  double 
spy  of  the  same  name.)  Probably  the  "  practices  "  were  a  notion  of 
reverting  to  Spanish  relations,  and  dealings  with  Elizabeth's  Irish 
rebels  (March  1598).^*  Bruce  might  thus  avenge  himself  on  James 
for  the  loss  of  his  pulpit.  James  was  naturally  wroth  that  Robert 
Cecil  had  met  Bothwell  at  Rouen,  and  a  play  in  which  Scotland 
was  ridiculed  offended  the  Court  and  country.^^  Elizabeth  wrote 
haughtily  to  James  (April  25),  and  if  Cecil  could  have  made 
mischief  by  aid  of  Bothwell,  he  would  doubtless  have  pursued  the 
usual  policy  of  the  Tudors.  Elizabeth  did  present  James  with 
;^3ooo,  such  were  his  "fiddler's  wages." 

Meanwhile  there  was  grumbling  at  the  expenditure  of  public 
money  on  banquets  to  the  Duke  of  Holstein.  To  make  matters 
worse,  in  May  a  scoundrel  called  Valentine  Thomas  gave  out  that 


436  BAD   TERMS   WITH   ENGLAND   (1598). 

James  had  employed  him  to  murder  Elizabeth,  and  James  was  all 
the  more  indignant,  as  Elizabeth  had  received  Bothwell's  ally,  the 
unwearied  intriguer,  John  Colville.  Elizabeth  sent  Bowes  to  soothe 
James  by  protesting  that  she  was  not  "of  so  viperous  a  nature"  as 
to  believe  the  allegations  of  Valentine  Thomas  (July  i).  Meanwhile 
Maclean  was  more  and  more  impatient  for  his  pay,  and  Glenorchy, 
a  secret  correspondent  of  Cecil,  was  the  chief  restraint  on  High- 
landers who  wished  to  join  the  Irish  rebels.  On  August  7  Glenorchy 
reported  the  death  of  Maclean  in  a  clan  battle.  It  is  a  melancholy 
circumstance  that  the  authors  of  clan  histories  cannot  be  relied  on 
for  that  impartiality  without  which  history  becomes  fiction.  It  is 
agreed  that  the  great  Maclean  fell  in  Isla,  where  he  and  his  nephew 
(Dunluce)  had  met  to  attempt  an  arrangement  of  their  differences. 
But  while  the  Maclean  chroniclers  assert  that  their  chief  arrived  at 
the  tryst  in  the  garb  of  peace,  a  silken  suit,  armed  only  with  the  long 
rapier  of  Tybald  or  Mercutio  (this  is  Mr  Ty tier's  version),  the  learned 
Gregory  maintains  that  Maclean  was  killed  in  a  regular  pitched 
battle.  The  evidence  of  Nicholson,  writing  to  Robert  Cecil 
(August  16),  supports  the  theory  of  the  Macleans.  Duart  was 
invited  to  a  friendly  meeting,  he  was  accompanied  by  only  200 
of  his  men,  and  was  dressed  in  silk,  doubtless  in  the  embroidered 
doublet  and  puffed  breeches  of  a  Court  gentleman.  His  rapier  was 
a  present  from  Argyll,  whose  own  portrait,  in  the  costume  described, 
is  at  Inverary  Castle.  At  the  close  of  the  meeting  Dunluce's  party 
attacked  the  Macleans,  and  a  hidden  force  of  armed  men  assailed 
them,  Maclean  slew  three  with  his  rapier,  and  sent  his  son  away  to 
live  and  avenge  him.  The  bowmen  of  Clan  Gilzean  fled  when  they 
saw  their  great  chief  go  down.^*^  When  a  young  son  of  ^Maclean's 
knelt  to  the  king  for  justice  James  remarked  that  "it  was  well  fought 
on  both  sides,"  but  his  intelligences  denied  that  Maclean  was 
attacked  "under  trust." 

However,  Gregory  gives  quite  a  different  account.  There  was 
an  open  battle.  Maclean  was  worsted  and  slain  in  a  regular 
set  fight.  The  tactics  of  Dunluce  were  ingenious.  The  key  of 
the  position  was  a  certain  hill-top.  Dunluce,  in  the  opening  of 
the  fight,  caused  his  vanguard  to  make  a  feigned  retreat.  They 
then  gained  the  desired  eminence  by  a  detour,  and  charging  down- 
hill, broke  the  Macleans.  The  son  of  the  chief  with  difficulty 
escaped.^"  As  is  natural,  Calderwood  takes  the  Maclean  view,  and 
accuses   the  king  of  "hounding  out"   Dunluce.       He   had   never 


I 


DEATH  OF  LACHLAN  MACLEAN  (1598).       437 

forgiven  Maclean,  says  Calderwood,  for  his  behaviour  in  the  Edin- 
burgh riot  of  December  17,  1596.  What  that  behaviour  was  we 
have  explained.  On  August  30  Dunluce  presented  James  with  a 
gun,  so  they  must  have  been  on  good  terms.^^  It  was  the  king's 
intention  to  proceed  to  the  Isles  and  suppress  the  disorders. 
Calderwood  represents  this  purpose  as  a  mere  farce.^^ 

At  this  time  (August  1598)  the  preachers  were  much  vexed  by  the 
restoration  of  Archbishop  Beaton,  Mary's  old  ambassador,  to  his 
temporalities.  Mr  Patrick  Simpson  preached  against  the  king  at 
Stirling,  and  James,  who  had  a  passion  for  "brawling"  in  church, 
arose  and  bade  him  cease  to  meddle  in  these  matters.'*^  The  church- 
goers of  this  age  enjoyed  many  exciting  scenes  of  mere  secular  in- 
terest. In  fact  Sunday  was  the  day,  and  church  was  the  scene,  of 
the  most  animated  political  debates.  James's  book,  '  The  True  Law 
of  Free  Monarchies,'  was  published  in  September,  and  supplied  much 
matter  of  discussion.  By  a  "  free  monarchy "  James  meant  a 
monarchy  in  which  the  king,  and  nobody  else,  is  free.  Like  the 
preachers,  he  based  his  absurd  and  ruinous  pretensions  on  detached 
texts  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  here  the  ministers  had  the  better 
of  the  argument.  The  monarchies  of  Israel  and  Judah  were  tempered 
by  prophets,  of  whom  the  ministers  were  the  representatives.  James 
overlooked  that  side  of  the  question.  The  preachers  were  also 
offended  by  the  Christmas  revels  of  the  Court,  and  in  January 
1599  James  informed  the  Edinburgh  ministers  that,  "if  ye  speak 
against  me,  my  crown  or  my  estate,  hanging  shall  be  the  pain  of  the 
first  fault."  ^^  The  arrival  of  Huntly  and  Home  gave  umbrage  to  the 
Brethren,  and  James  himself  was  accused  of  writing  to  the  Pope 
(October  3,   isgSy^ 

As  in  the  case  of  his  memorandum,  captured  with  the  Spanish 
Blanks,  and  of  the  mission  of  Ogilvieof  Pourie,  it  is  difficult  to  ascer- 
tain how  far  James  was  really  tampering  with  the  Catholic  Powers. 
There  was  enough  to  justify  suspicion.  James  (October)  is  said  to 
have  had  a  dream  that  Elizabeth  would  outlive  him,  wherefore  he 
bequeathed  his  wisdom  to  his  son.  Prince  Henry,  in  the  book 
'Basilikon  Doron,'  which  procured  for  him  trouble  enough.^^  In 
November  Father  James  Gordon,  Huntly 's  uncle,  boldly  returned  to 
Scotland,  and  walked  straight  into  Holyrood.  His  object  was  to 
hold  a  public  controversy  with  the  preachers.  He  was  taken  to  the 
castle  and  well  treated,  though  the  preachers  clamoured  for  his  death. 
The  Council  decided  merely  to  banish  Gordon,  and  execute  him  if 


438  THE  JUDGES   DEFY   THE   KING   (1599)- 

he  returned.  By  James's  desire  he  went  to  stay  with  Lord  Seton, 
the  preachers  threatened  Seton  with  excommunication,  and  there 
were  all  the  materials  for  a  quarrel.  But  Gordon,  finding  that  the 
ministers  would  not  meet  him  in  argument,  withdrew  from  the 
country  in  May  1599.^  AH  these  affairs,  with  others,  made  the 
relations  between  James  and  the  Kirk  unpleasant  in  the  opening  of 
1599.  If  Elizabeth  had  at  last  frankly  expressed  her  disbelief  in 
Valentine  Thomas's  charges  against  the  king,  she  was  vexed  that  he 
had  sent  envoys  to  ask  the  aid  of  Protestant  Powers,  if  ever  he  had 
to  assert  his  claim  to  the  English  crown.  Elizabeth  justly  censured 
this  conduct  as  "indelicate,"  but  had  sent  _;^3ooo  (December  31).^^ 
But  James  remained  dissatisfied  with  Elizabeth's  treatment  of  the 
affair  of  Valentine  Thomas,   which  trailed  on   for  years. 

The  discontent  of  James  with  the  preachers  found  in  February 
1599  an  outlet.  In  earlier  days,  when  Bruce  the  preacher  was  a 
favourite,  James  had  given  him  a  pension  out  of  the  rich  lands  of 
the  Abbey  of  Arbroath,  once  held  by  Cardinal  Beaton.  This 
pension  James  withdrew  in  an  arbitrary  manner.  Bruce  brought 
an  action  for  recovery,  and  the  king  tried  to  intimidate  the  judges. 
When  it  came  to  a  vote,  he  asked  who  dared  to  vote  against  him. 
Several  rose  and  said  that  they  must  do  their  duty.  The  President, 
Sir  Alexander  Seton,  later  Chancellor  Dunfermline,  was  particularly 
resolute.  All  honest  men,  he  said,  would  vote  according  to  their 
consciences  or  resign.  The  king  was  defeated.  The  interesting 
point  is  that  the  judges  braved  the  king  in  defence  of  one  of  the 
preachers,  though  certain  preachers  had  slandered  them  from  the 
pulpit.  Seton  in  particular  had  often  been  attacked  as  an  idolater, 
especially  when  he  was  one  of  the  Octavians.  The  Court  of 
Session  for  very  many  years  after  this  event  was  certainly  believed 
to  be  much  swayed  by  kinship,  if  not  by  bribes.  The  behaviour 
of  the  judges  on  this  occasion  is  a  rare  example  of  honesty  and 
courage  on  one  side,  on  the  other  of  James's  disastrous  theories  of 
ro)al  prerogative  (March  1 6).^'' 

These  shine  in  his  book,  the  '  Basilikon  Doron,'  a  legacy  of 
advice  to  his  son.  We  hear  of  it  in  the  autumn  of  159S.  On 
February  17,  1599,  Nicholson,  the  English  agent  in  Edinburgh, 
writes  that  he  has  obtained  a  copy.^''  At  first  only  seven  copies 
were  printed,  or  at  least  were  privately  distributed.  One  of  them, 
or  extracts  from  it,  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  St  Andrews  preacher 
through  Andrew  Melville.     Dykes,  the  preacher  (September  1599), 


"A   HAIR   IN   THE   KING'S   NECK."  439 

laid  them,  without  explicitly  stating  the  authorship,  before  the  Synod 
of  Fife,  who  humorously  forwarded  them  to  James  as  works  of  a 
malignant  but  anonymous  author.  Dykes  had  to  fly,  but  the  synod 
distinctly  scored  a  trick  off  the  king.  He  had  said  in  his  book  that 
"the  rewling  of  the  Kirk  weill  is  na  small  part  of  the  king's  office." 
"Ministers  should  not  mell  [meddle]  with  matters  of  State  in 
pulpit"  "No  man  is  more  to  be  hated  of  a  king  than  a  proud 
Puritan."  "  The  Ministers  sought  to  establish  a  democracy  in  this 
land,  and  to  become  tribiini  plebis  themselves."  For  these  evils 
Episcopacy  was  the  only  remedy.^*^  In  1603  James  published  his 
book,  with  a  few  alterations.  It  is  easy  to  sympathise  with  his 
hatred  of  inspired  tribunes  of  the  people.  But  he  saw  no  alterna- 
tive except  the  covert,  and  we  may  say  fraudulent  and  illegal,  in- 
troduction of  Episcopacy  on  one  hand,  and  an  attempt  to  erect  a 
despotism  on  the  other.  These  ideas  proved  fatal  to  his  House  and 
ruinous  to  public  peace.  But  we  may  still  ask.  What  course  ought 
James  to  have  taken  ?  The  problem  of  Church  and  State  has  only 
drifted  into  an  illogical  modus  vivendi  by  efflux  of  years,  and  by 
weariness  of  warfare. 

In  spring  and  summer  the  State  verged  on  bankruptcy.  The 
Master  of  Elphinstone  (Balmerino)  at  last  took  the  Treasury  (April 
20),  and  the  company  of  Lowland  lairds  attempted  to  get  money  by 
colonising  the  Isle  of  Lewes.  It  were  too  long  to  tell  the  story 
of  their  disasters  and  defeat  by  the  Celts.  In  June  the  EngHsh 
Ambassador,  William  Bowes,  coolly  kidnapped  an  English  gentle- 
man named  Ashfield.  The  victim,  rather  bemused  with  drugged 
wine,  was  beguiled  into  Bowes's  carriage  and  driven  off  to  Berwick.^-' 
This  was  managed  by  Sir  John  Guevara,  cousin  of  Willoughby,  who 
commanded  at  Berwick.  Willoughby,  to  aid  the  plotters,  had  a 
swift  yacht  lying  off  Leith.  The  adventure  has  a  resemblance  in 
outline  to  the  probable  aim  of  the  Gowrie  conspiracy  later.  The 
arrival  of  an  ambassador  from  France  increased  Bowes's  and  Robert 
Cecil's  belief  in  the  king's  trafficking  with  Catholic  Powers.^^ 
Sempill  of  Beltrees  was  sent  to  Elizabeth's  Court  to  patch  up 
peace  about  the  outrage  on  Ashfield  and  other  matters.  Robert 
Cecil  suspected  that  Scotland  was  taking  the  Catholic  course,  and 
unluckily  the  treasurer,  Elphinstone,  with  or  without  James's 
connivance,  implicated  him  in  dealings  with  the  Pope.  Elphin- 
stone's  own  account,  given  years  later,  was  that  Archbishop  Beaton 
moved  him  to  open  communications  with  Rome.     He  approached 


440      THE  DOUBTFUL  LETTER  TO  THE  POPE. 

James,  who  only  refused  to  call  the  Pope  Pater  and  Beatissime. 
The  object  was  to  get  Chisholme,  a  Scot,  Bishop  of  Vaizon,  made 
a  cardinal.  The  scruple  about  the  Pope's  titles  (like  that  of  an 
earlier  Pope  about  King  Robert  Bruce's  title)  caused  a  difificulty. 
Elphinstone  therefore  had  a  Latin  letter  drawn  up  in  proper  form 
{Pater  Beatissime,  and  all)  begging  for  the  Bishop's  promotion. 
As  Cardinal  he  might  disprove  the  calumnies  against  James  as  a 
persecutor  of  Catholics,  calumnies  which  stood  between  him  and 
the  Catholics  of  England.  This  letter  James  was  induced  to  sign, 
unread,  among  a  heap  of  other  documents.  Such,  as  we  shall  see, 
was  the  account  given  later  by  Elphinstone  (Balmerino).*^  This 
intrigue  was  probably  unknown  at  the  time  to  the  watchful  preachers  ; 
indeed,  according  to  Elphinstone's  confession,  it  was  unknown  to 
James,  who  signed  the  compromising  letter  unwittingly.  The  Pope's 
answer  to  the  letter  is  extant :  he  regrets  that  James  does  not  even 
remotely  hint  at  a  chance  of  his  conversion.  The  story  reached 
the  world  in  consequence  of  a  later  controversy  between  James  and 
Cardinal  Bellarmine.  But  if  the  King  of  Scotland  did  not  know 
that  he  had  approached  the  Beast,  and  corresponded  with  anti- 
christ, the  Queen  of  England  did  know.  In  the  August  of  the  fol- 
lowing year  (1600)  the  Master  of  Gray  wrote  to  Cardinal  Borghese  : 
."  All  that  was  done  for  our  king  in  Rome  last  winter  is  as  well  known 
to  the  Queen  of  England  as  to  the  intriguers  themselves,  though  per- 
haps they  are  not  aware  of  it.  Therefore  I  do  not  see  how  what  was 
promised  in  the  king's  name  can  be  granted,  nor  that  what  was  said 
can  be  true,  especially  as  to  his  religious  opinions.  I  suppose  he 
may  favour  the  Catholics  so  far  as  they  have  not  yet  attempted  any- 
thing against  his  will."  The  Master  of  Gray  had  not  quite  reco^"ered 
favour  with  James,  and  was  now  a  spy  of  Cecils.  He  was  also  in 
communication  with  Borghese,  and  what  he  learned  from  Borghese 
of  secret  dealings  at  Rome  he  doubtless  reported  to  Cecil  in 
England. ^^  Gray  added,  what  was  true,  that  the  preachers  had 
still  a  great  deal  of  influence  in  Scotland,  and  that  the  king 
resisted  them  "  in  a  fashion,  and  as  far  as  he  can,  not  for  religion, 
but  in  defence  of  his  own  royal  authority  "  ("  pro  Isesa  sua  majestate 
et  authoritate  "). 

This  was  the  correct  view.  Doctrinally  James  and  the  preachers 
were  at  one.  The  struggle  was  for  the  freedom  of  the  secular 
authority.  Meanwhile  (1599)  the  preachers  found  matter  for 
sermons  in  the  permission  accorded  to  the  French  Ambassador  (a 


PREACHERS  AND  PLAY  ACTORS.  44 1 

Sully  of  Bethune)  to  hear  a  private  mass.  Their  next  grievance 
was  the  appearance  of  Fletcher  and  Martin's  troop  of  English 
actors  in  Edinburgh.  They  took  (by  James's  warrant)  a  house  in 
Blackfriars'  Wynd.  The  four  town  sessions  forbade  the  public  to 
attend  the  performances.  The  preachers  were  summoned  before 
the  Council.  They  excused  themselves  by  saying  that  James  had 
granted  the  players  the  use  of  a  house,  but  not  hcence  to  act  plays. 
This  insolent  evasion,  put  forth  by  Mr  Bruce,  did  not  pass.  The 
magistrates  were  obliged,  says  Nicholson,  to  withdraw  the  prohibi- 
tion on  the  players,  and  there  was  a  quarrel  with  "  the  bellows- 
blowers  "  (as  Nicholson  invidiously  styles  the  preachers)  on  the 
point  of  their  intimating  James's  proclamation  from  the  pulpit.*^ 
The  Kirk  continued  for  centuries  to  be  hostile  to  the  drama. 

In  November  James's  constant  anxiety  about  the  English  suc- 
cession inspired  the  formation  of  a  "  band "  wherein  his  subjects 
promised  to  maintain  his  rights.  This  was  known  in  England. 
The  weakness  of  the  country  was  proved  at  a  convention  in  De- 
cember, where  James  did  not  shine  as  a  financier,  his  suggestions 
for  increased  taxation  being  shelved.^*  In  November  Kirk  affairs 
had  occupied  a  convention  at  Holyrood.  The  discussions  con- 
cerned the  beginnings  of  the  introduction  of  Episcopacy,  and  turned 
on  disputed  texts  in  the  Greek  Testament.  The  Brethren  argued 
that  all  the  caveats,  to  secure  the  Kirk  from  bishops,  would  be 
broken  if  preachers  with  prelatic  titles  sat  in  Parliament.  Andrew 
Melville  and  others  reasoned  the  cause  of  the  Brethren  :  the  con- 
ference was  preparatory  to  a  discussion  in  the  General  Assembly 
of  1600. 

In  December  the  beginning  of  the  year  was  fixed  on  January  i, 
1600,  not  on  March  25,  as  had  been  the  usage,  in  itself  apt  to 
provoke  chronological  confusion  in  historical  writing. 


442 


NOTES. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    XVI. 


^  James  Melville,  pp.  388,  389. 

^  Spottiswoode,  iii.  53,  54. 

5  Thorpe,  ii.  739- 

^  James  Melville,  p.  416. 

^  James  Melville,  p.  438. 

^^  Spottiswoode,  iii.  67. 

1'  Mirville,  Des  Esprits. 


^  James  Melville,  pp.  390-403. 

^  Thorpe,  ii.  731. 

•  Forbes-Leith,  Narratives,  pp.  232-242. 

8  James  Melville,  p.  418. 

^^  Thorpe,  ii.  729. 

^^  Thorpe,  ii.  739. 
Paris,  1855. 

"  Hay  Fleming,  St  Andrews  Kirk-Session  Register,  ii.  882  and  note  2.      See 
also  Introduction,  Ixxviii,  Ixxxi,  whence  other  anecdotes  are  cited. 
15  Privy  Council  Register,  v.  409,  410. 
^^  Spottiswoode,  iii.  66,  67.  ^^  Thorpe,  ii.  745. 

^8  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iv.  142-146. 

^9  Calderwood,  v.  668,  670;  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  iv.  130. 
-"  Calderwood,  v.  695.  -^  Calderwood,  v.  707-709. 

2-  Thorpe,  ii.  746.  ^  Thorpe,  ii.  747. 

2^  Thorpe,  ii.  748.  25  Thorpe,  ii.  749. 

-^  Nicholson  to  R.  Cecil,  August  16.  State  Papers,  Scot.,  Eliz.,  MS.,  vol.  Ixii. 
No.  67. 

^  Gregory,  pp.  284,  285  ;  Tytler,  ix.  285  ;  Calderwood,  v.  726. 

^  Thorpe,  ii.  755. 

"^  Calderwood,  v.  726,  Nicholson  to  Robert  Cecil,  September  2;  Thorpe,  ii. 

755- 

^'*  Calderwood,  v.  727.  ^^  Calderwood,  v.  731. 

*-  Thorpe,  ii.  757.  ^^  Thorpe,  ii.  759. 

^•'  Forbes-Leith,  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  pp.  243-261  ;  Privy  Council 
Register,  v.  503,  504. 

■^5  Thorpe,  ii.  762,  763.  '^''  Thorpe,  ii.  767,  Nicholson  to  Robert  Cecil. 

^  Thorpe,  ii.  766.  '^^  James  Melville,  pp.  444,  446. 

*"  Border  Calendar,  ii.  607,  608.  ^^  Thorpe,  ii.  771-773. 

•^^  Calderwood,  v.  740-744.  ■*-  Papers,  Master  of  Gray,  p.  187. 

■**  Calderwood,  v.  765,  767  ;  Thorpe,  ii.  777,  77S,  Nicholson  to  Robert  Cecil 
November  12. 

•*■*  Thorpe,  ii.  779. 


443 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

THE    GOWRIE    CONSPIRACY. 
1 600. 

The  year  1600  is  marked  in  Scottish  history  by  that  mysterious 
event  called  "The  Gowrie  Conspiracy."  The  political  eftects  of  this 
affair,  in  which  the  son  and  successor  of  the  Gowrie  of  the  Raid  of 
Ruthven  and  his  brother  were  slain  by  the  king's  servants,  were 
considerable.  England  lost,  in  young  Gowrie,  an  ally  perhaps  too 
devoted,  and  the  Kirk  was  deprived  of  a  leader,  that  is,  if  Gowrie 
was  not  a  Catholic  playing  a  double  game.  Making  his  advantage 
of  the  subsequent  conduct  of  some  of  the  preachers,  James 
reduced  their  already  enfeebled  power,  and  took  steps  towards  their 
more  complete  abasement.  But  his  own  character  was  blotted  by 
the  belief  that  he  planned  deliberately  the  slaughter  of  the  Ruth- 
vens,  Gowrie  and  his  brother,  a  point  on  which  historians  are  still 
divided.  The  affair  seemed  to  come  like  a  bolt  from  a  serene  sky, 
but  attention  to  preceding  occurrences  proves  that,  in  the  usual 
course  of  Scottish  affairs,  a  plot  to  capture  James  and  reinstate  the 
party  of  the  Kirk  was  due,  and  might  have  been  expected.  The 
relations  of  James  and  Elizabeth  were  highly  unsatisfactory.  As 
she  neared  her  death  she  became  even  more  sensitive  on  the 
question  of  her  successor.  James's  secret  relations  with  Essex,  who 
was  meditating  a  coup  d'etat  in  his  interests,  were  suspected,  if  not 
clearly  cnown,  by  Cecil.  James  complained  that  his  meagre 
annuity  was  unpaid,  and  pressed  on  the  publication  of  new  books 
defending  his  rightful  claim  (January  12).^  The  English  priest 
spy,  Dr  Cecil,  had  put  out  a  tract  nominally  against  the  Scottish 
Jesuit,  Father  Crichton,  but  really  most  injurious  to  the  character 
and  rights   of  James.     The   book,  whereof  only  a   single  copy  is 


444  COWRIE'S   RELIGION. 

known,  was  finished  in  the  August  of  1599.^  Dr  Cecil's  whole 
object  was  to  discredit  James  among  the  English  Catholics.  It  is 
actually  averred  by  him  that  James  in  1586  wrote  to  Elizabeth 
a  letter  urging  the  death  of  his  mother,  with  the  celebrated  words, 
Mortui  7ion  morde7it.  "  How  little  would  be  the  gain  to  Catholics 
were  he  to  become  king  of  three  such  kingdoms  as  England,  Ireland, 
and  Scolland."  Such,  as  early  as  1596,  were  the  opinions  of  Dr 
Cecil.  Thus  among  James's  anxieties  was  the  possible  opposition 
of  perhaps  a  majority  of  the  Enghsh — namely,  the  Catholics — to  his 
claim.  He  was  also  fretted  by  a  proposed  marriage  for  Arabella 
Stuart,  the  daughter  of  his  father's  younger  brother.  She,  not  being 
like  himself  an  alien,  might  have  her  own  faction  in  England,  and 
might  offer  a  sounder  legal  claim  to  the  succession. 

While  these  were  the  relations  of  England  and  the  king,  on 
April  3  the  young  Earl  of  Cowrie  returned  from  the  Continent  to 
England.  He  had  quitted  Scotland,  as  we  saw,  when  aged  about 
seventeen,  in  August  1594.  From  October  1593  to  April  1594,  or 
later,  Gowrie  with  AthoU  had  been  engaged  in  a  confederacy 
with  Bothwell,  and  they  had  informed  Cecil  that  they  regarded  them- 
selves as  subjects,  or  servants,  of  Elizabeth.  The  Bothwell-Gowrie- 
Atholl  combination  failed,  and  young  Gowrie  in  August  1594  went 
abroad,  and  studied  in  the  legal  faculty  of  the  University  of  Padua. 
Here  he  and  his  tutor,  Mr  Rhynd,  were  scholars,  as  the  archives  of 
the  University  show.  All  that  is  known  of  the  young  man  at  this 
period  is  that  in  1595  he  answered  in  a  friendly  manner  a  friendly 
letter  of  the  king's,  while  to  the  minister  of  Perth  he  expressed 
fanatically  Protestant  sentiments,  and  a  hope  of  remedying  on  his 
return  whatever  in  Scotland  was  amiss  through  his  absence."^  Padua 
had  in  Scotland  a  name  for  magical  studies,  and  after  his  death 
Gowrie  was  accused  of  having  talked  about  the  cabala,  and  worn  a 
talisman,  a  practice  then  common  enough  on  the  Continent.  In  what 
year  he  left  Padua  we  do  not  know,  but  the  author  of  an  unpublished 
vindication  of  his  conduct  says  that  he  suffered  at  Rome  for  the  truth 
of  his  religion.*  On  the  other  hand,  Nicholson,  the  English  resident 
at  Holyrood,  in  December  1598,  writes  from  Edinburgh  that  Gowrie 
"has  turned  Papist."^  After  Cowrie's  death  the  royal  chaplain, 
Galloway,  insisted  on  this  point  :  Gowrie  had  been  trying  to  induce 
the  king  to  negotiate  with  Rome.  The  king  was  his  authority  for 
this  statement,  uttered  in  the  royal  presence.  Bothwell,  in  writing 
to  the  Spanish   Court,    reckons   Gowrie    and    Logan   of   Restalrig 


AN    USEFUL   SCOT.  445 

among  Catholics  (Spanish  State  Papers,  iv.  680).  It  is  conceivable 
that  Gowrie,  in  the  interest  of  England,  had  been  trying,  under  a 
pretence  of  sympathy,  to  find  out  the  truth  as  to  the  incessant 
charges  against  James  of  tampering  with  the  Pope. 

On  August  21,  1599,  John  Colville  told  Cecil  that  the  party  of 
the  Kirk  intended  to  bring  home  Gowrie.®  Whether  they  sent  for 
him  or  not  he  turned  homewards,  passing  three  months,  says  Calder- 
wood,  in  the  hotbed  of  Calvinism,  with  Beza  at  Geneva.  He  was 
in  Paris  in  February  and  March  1599,  and  thither  Robert  Bruce, 
the  preacher,  went  to  call  him  home,  as  we  learn  from  a  MS. 
dictated  by  him  in  old  age.  There,  too,  was  Lord  Home,  who 
paid  a  visit  to  Bothwell  at  Brussels,  and  came  back  to  Scotland 
in  April  18,  incurring  James's  displeasure  for  "trysting  with  Both- 
well."  ''  In  Paris  also  was  the  desperate  intriguer,  John  Colville. 
To  Neville,  the  English  Ambassador  at  Paris,  Gowrie  seemed  a 
useful  agent  for  Elizabeth  (February  27,  1600).  "  He  was  well 
affected  to  religion  and  her  majesty  " ;  he  was  to  be  received  with 
honour  and  favour.  "  You  will  find  him  to  be  a  man  of  whom 
there  may  be  exceeding  good  use  made  J'  ^  Now,  a  very  useful  Scot,  in 
Cecil's  and  Elizabeth's  opinion,  was  most  undeniably  a  Scot  who 
would  capture  James's  person. 

By  April  Gowrie  was  in  London.  At  the  English  court  he 
resided  for  over  a  month  (April-May  1600)  on  the  friendliest  terms 
with  Elizabeth,  and  treated  like  a  prince  of  the  blood,  says  tradition. 
Lie  made  the  acquaintance  of  Lord  Willoughby,  governor  of 
Berwick. 

Angry  with  James  as  to  the  succession,  suspecting  his  intrigue 
with  Essex,  aware  of  the  dim  traffickings  between  Scotland  and 
Rome  (wildly  exaggerated  by  Bothwell's  ally,  the  spy  Colville), 
Elizabeth  in  May  seized  at  Hull  a  consignment  of  muskets  intended 
for  the  Scottish  king.^  On  April  20,  Gowrie  being  then  in  Eng- 
land, Nicholson  reported  from  Holyrood  the  king's  dissatisfaction 
with  the  peace  between  England  and  Spain,  and  rumours  of  a 
conspiracy  by  Douglas  of  Spot,  Colville,  and  Archibald  Douglas.^** 
James  was  especially  "  discontented  "  with  Nicholson  himself,  and 
his  great  desire  was  that  a  convention  should  grant  him  money  for 
warlike  preparations,^^  perhaps  to  demonstrate  in  favour  of  Essex's 
contemplated  conspiracy. 

Towards  the  middle  of  May  Gowrie  had  returned  to  Scotland 
amid  great  rejoicings  of  welcome.      It  is  an  obvious  conjecture  that 


446  GOWRIE   AT   COURT. 

Robert  Cecil,  Elizabeth,  and  Willoughby,  in  England,  with  any 
malcontents  of  the  Scottish  Kirk  party,  may,  or  rather  must,  have 
pointed  out  to  Gowrie  the  path  already  indicated  to  him  by 
religious  prepossession,  ambition,  and  revenge.  True  religion 
required  the  aid  of  an  enemy  of  idolatry,  like  Gowrie,  against  a 
king  who  was  trafficking  with  the  Scarlet  Woman  that  sitteth  on 
the  Seven  Hills,  and  "  stramping  "  on  the  Kirk.  We  know  that  the 
name  of  Ruthven  and  its  allies  were  still  hankering  to  avenge 
the  death  of  "  Greysteil "  that  Gowrie  executed  in  1584;  at  least, 
Colonel  Stewart,  who  had  taken  part  in  his  fall,  showed  a  sudden 
desire  to  be  employed  by  Elizabeth  in  Ireland  as  soon  as  young 
Gowrie  came  home.  But  the  Earl  seemed  to  be  on  the  friendliest 
terms  with  James,  who  liked  learned  talk  with  a  young  scholar  home 
from  Italy. 

We  think  of  the  king  and  his  discourse,  in  Latin,  with  "  Glen- 
varlochides,"  Nigel  Ohphant,  in  the  "  Fortunes  of  Nigel."  But 
Gowrie  had  been  rather  too  well  received  by  Elizabeth,  with  whom 
James  was  so  enraged.  According  to  Carey,  writing  to  Cecil 
(May  29),  the  king  gave  Gowrie  "many  jests  and  pretty  taunts" 
about  "the  great  conference  held  with  the  queen's  majesty,  and 
that  he  had  been  offered  some  gold."  The  Earl  said  that  he  owed 
her  kindness  to  her  affection  for  James,  and  that  he  "  had  gold 
enough  for  himself."  He  had  not ;  for  James  owed  him  money 
for  his  father's  outlay  when  governor  of  Scotland,  and  Gowrie  was 
pressed  by  creditors.  James  gave  him  a  year's  grace  as  to  his 
father's  creditors,  and  promised  one  day  to  pay  him.^^  In  banter 
"  the  king  marvelled  that  the  ministers  met  him  not "  when  he 
entered  Edinburgh ;  and  Calderwood  reports  other  taunting  or 
tactless  speeches — for  example,  as  to  Riccio's  murder.^^ 

The  sisters  of  Gowrie  were  maids  of  honour  to  the  queen,  and 
Alexander  Ruthven,  his  brother,  made  suit  to  be  a  gentleman  of  the 
bedchamber,  but  his  suit  was  not  accepted.  Tattle  alleged  alter- 
nately that  the  queen  was  in  love  with  the  young  Ruthven  or  with 
Gowrie.  It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  such  idle  gossip.  By  the  end 
of  May  Gowrie  retired  to  his  town  house  at  Perth,  a  chateau  with 
a  garden  sloping  to  the  Tay.  Nicholson,  reporting  this  fact, 
announced  impending  storms  which  Gowrie  might  intend  to  avoid 
(May  27).^* 

A  convention  was  to  have  been  held  in  June,  but  the  murder 
of  the  Border  Warden,  Sir  John  Carmichael,  by  the  Armstrongs, 


THE   CONVENTION   ON   FINANCE.  447 

caused  it  to  be  postponed  for  some  days.^^  On  June  29  Nicholson 
reported  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  and  the  speech  in  which 
the  king  demanded  money,  with  a  view  to  securing  his  succession 
and  "  honourable  entering  to  the  crown  of  England  after  the  death  of 
the  queen."  Nothing  could  have  been  more  cruelly  tactless,  more 
apt  to  anger  Elizabeth  ;  and  an  arrangement  with  Essex  was  prob- 
ably in  the  mind  of  the  king.  The  Lord  President,  Seton,  lately 
one  of  the  Octavians,  a  man  of  upright  and  resolute  character, 
skilled  in  finance,  opposed  the  king's  demands.  It  was  insane  for 
a  small,  poor  country  like  Scotland  to  hope  to  win  by  arms  what 
could  only  be  gained  by  consent  of  the  English  people.  This  was 
true ;  but  it  also  seems  that  if,  on  the  death  of  Elizabeth,  Protestant 
England  was  for  James,  Catholic  England  for  the  Infanta,  James 
ought  to  be  in  a  position  to  help  his  own  faction.  But  the  Scots 
never  would  endure  taxation  for  military  purposes.  They  reckoned 
their  feudal  levies  potent  enough,  and  while  the  king  had  no  money 
and  no  "  waged  men  "  they  were  always  masters  of  the  king.  This 
policy  had  caused  many  disasters  in  war,  and  many  sanguinary 
revolutions.  Mary  herself  only  acquired  a  small  guard  of  mus- 
keteers in  consequence  of  the  murder  of  Riccio  and  the  danger  to 
her  person. 

James,  as  we  saw,  had  lately  admitted  the  barons,  or  lairds,  to 
Parliament.  They  and  the  burgess  members  were  now  as  recalci- 
trant about  taxation  as  if  they  had  been  English  knights  of  the 
shires.  They  offered  James  their  swords  when  they  were  needed, 
and,  on  condition  that  he  should  never  tax  them  again,  about 
p^4ooo,  at  most  (^40,000  Scots).  James  refused,  and  demanded 
100,000  crowns  to  be  paid  by  1000  persons.  Gowrie  replied  in  a 
speech  reported  by  Nicholson.  James  was  dishonouring  himself  by 
his  demands,  and  his  people  by  laying  bare  their  poverty.  James 
angrily  replied  he  could  call  a  Parliament  and  disenfranchise  the 
lairds  as  easily  as  he  had  enfranchised  them-^a  pretty  example  of 
the  constitutional  value  of  a  Scottish  Parliament.  The  laird  of 
Easter  Wemyss  retorted  that  they  had  paid  for  their  seats,  and 
would  have  the  seats  conferred  on  them  in  1587.  The  conven- 
tion broke  up,  and  Robert  Cecil  learned,  from  a  cyphered  and 
anonymous  despatch,  that  James  "  intends  not  to  tarry  upon  her 
majesty's  death,  but  take  time  so  soon  as  without  peril  he  can." 
This  message  was  probably  a  piece  of  mere  mischief-making. 

The  Government  was  bitterly  in  need  of  money.     Nicholson  again 


448  CONSPIRACIES   OF   COLVILLE   (1598). 

and  again  refers  to  the  poverty  prevailing.  The  islands  were  (as  is 
shown  later,  in  an  account  of  Highland  affairs)  unusually  turbulent. 
The  king  had  intended  to  conduct  an  expedition  himself  to  take 
order  with  Kintyre  and  Isla ;  "  but,"  writes  Nicholson,  "  the  '  rode ' 
to  the  isles  is  deferred  on  account  ot  the  great  scarcity  in  the 
country"  (July  22).  At  the  same  time  James  was  gratified  by  the 
recantation  of  his  old  enemy,  John  Colville,  the  spy  and  ally  of 
Bothwell.  This  man  had  either  written  a  book  against  James's 
legitimacy,  or  such  a  book  had  certainly  been  attributed  to  him. 
For  years  he  had  been  a  spy  half  out  of  employment ;  Cecil  would 
not  pay.  After  1598  he  was  abandoned  by  Essex.  An  exile  in 
France,  this  once  earnest  professor  was  now  converted  to 
Catholicism.  He  wrote  a  recantation  of  the  book  attributed  to 
him  against  the  king's  legitimacy,  and  was  reconciled  to  Archbishop 
Eeaton  in  Paris.  The  recantation  pleased  the  king ;  but  Colville 
continued  to  spy  for  the  English  Ambassador  in  France,  spied  his 
way  to  Rome,  and  begged  of  the  Pope.  He  died,  in  deserved 
poverty,  not  long  afterwards. ^^ 

As  we  approach  the  Cowrie  mystery,  it  may  be  observed  that 
Colville  and  other  agents  of  his  kind  perpetually  flattered  Cecil  and 
the  English  ministers  with  promises  to  kidnap  the  king  of  Scot- 
land.    Such  hopes  are  a  regular  element  in  their  letters. 

As  to  Colville,  this  needy,  vindictive,  and  desperate  man, 
writing  to  Essex  from  Scotland  on  April  29,  15 98,  makes  the 
following  strange  promise  :  "  And  for  the  service  I  mind  to  do,  if 
matters  go  to  the  worst,  it  shall  be  such,  God  willing, — if  I  lose 
not  my  life  in  doing  thereof, — as  no  other  can  do  with  a  million  of 
gold,  and  yet  I  shall  not  exceed  the  bounds  of  humanity.  But  for 
conscience'  sake  and  worldly  honesty  I  must  first  be  absolved  of 
my  natural  allegiance."  ^^  Colville  has  just  been  speaking  evil  of 
James,  and  now  he  promises  to  do  a  desperate  and  treasonable  deed, 
"  within  the  bounds  of  humanity  "  (that  is,  not  involving  murder),  a 
deed  which  only  he  can  do.  This  means  kidnapping  the  king. 
He  elsewhere  drops  a  similar  hint  (October  20,  1598).^*^ 

We  now  draw  near  that  fifth  of  August  which  James  ever  after- 
wards kept  as  a  public  holiday  in  memory  of  his  escape  from  the 
Cowrie  conspirators.  Cowrie  himself,  with  his  brother,  the  Master, 
was  hunting  in  AthoU  durin^  the  latter  part  of  July.  His  mother, 
Lady  Cowrie,  was  apparently  at  the  town  house  of  the  family  in 
Perth.^®     At  the  beginning  of  August  the  court  moved  from  Holy- 


GOWRIE   IN   AUGUST.  449 

rood  to  Falkland,  a  charming  palace  of  the  modern  French  chateau 
order,  unfortified,  save  for  the  strong  round  towers  and  the 
gateways.  In  spite  of  time  and  restoration,  Falkland  is  still, 
perhaps,  the  best  example  of  grace  and  comfort  in  a  Scottish  ro)'al 
residence  of  great  age.  The  park  and  woods  were  well  suited  for 
sport,  and  in  these  woods,  as  we  saw,  Bothwell  had  once  hoped  to 
trap  the  king  along  with  his  huntsmen. 

It  appears  from  the  treasurer's  accounts  that,  late  in  July, 
letters  were  sent  from  the  court,  then  at  Edinburgh,  to  the 
Earls  of  AthoU  and  Gowrie,  and  from  Falkland  to  the  Master  of 
Ruthven,  and  to  Drummond,  lay  Abbot  of  Inchaffray.  We  know 
nothing  of  the  contents  of  these  letters,  which  have  been  conjectured 
about  by  writers  on  the  mystery  of  the  Gowrie  conspiracy.  We 
learn,  however,  from  an  unpublished  MS.  that  James  had  been 
trying  to  induce  Gowrie  to  resign  the  lands  of  Scone  (of  which  James 
had  presented  him  with  the  rents  for  life)  to  his  younger  brother.-^ 
To  this  matter  the  letters  may  have  referred ;  nothing  is  known. 
On  one  of  the  last  days  of  July  a  kinsman  of  Gowrie,  Alexander 
Ruthven  (the  ancestor,  in  the  female  line,  of  the  present  house  of 
Ruthven),  rode  from  Dunkeld  to  Gowrie's  hunting  lodge  in  Atholl 
(Strabane).  On  Friday,  August  i,  Gowrie  sent  Captain  Ruthven  from 
Atholl  to  tell  his  mother  that  "he  was  to  come,"  and  the  confused 
language  of  his  servant,  Craigengelt,  who  deponed  to  this,  makes  it 
probable  that  Lady  Gowrie  was  then  at  Perth.  If  so,  she  left  at  once 
for  Gowrie's  Castle  of  Dirleton,  now  a  beautiful  ruin  near  the  sea  hard 
by  North  Berwick.^i  To  Dirleton — according  to  the  contemporary 
Vindication  in  MS.,  to  Calderwood,  and  to  Carey  (writing  to  Cecil 
from  Berwick  on  August  11) — Gowrie  himself  intended  to  go  on 
August  5.  Most  of  his  men  and  all  his  provisions  were  there 
already,  says  Carey  ;  but  Gowrie  never  saw  Dirleton  again. -^ 

We  now  reach  August  5,  the  day  of  the  Gowrie  tragedy.  Some- 
thing must  first  be  said  as  to  the  evidence.  It  is  vitiated,  on  the 
king's  side,  by  his  theory  that  murder  was  intended  against  him  by 
the  Ruthvens,  whereas  the  plot,  if  plot  there  was,  must  have  been 
merely  one  out  of  scores  of  schemes  for  kidnapping  the  royal 
person,  and  working  a  revolution  in  favour  of  England,  the  Kirk,  or 
Rome.  Nothing  was  reckoned  more  constitutional.  The  evidence, 
again,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  mainly  that  of  the  king,  and  of 
a  mysterious  personage,  corroborated  in  part  by  James's  retinue,  and 
by  citizens  of  Perth  and  others,  who  were  present.     The  opponents 

VOL.  II.  2  F 


450  THE   EVIDENCE. 

of  James,  contemporary  or  modern,  discount  this  evidence,  as  a 
rule,  where  it  does  not  suit  them.  But  the  most  important  witnesses 
declined,  on  the  most  essential  points,  to  say  things  quite  necessary 
to  the  success  of  their  cause,  or  even  to  stretch  a  point,  where  the 
temptation  was  great  and  obvious.  Again,  the  discrepancies 
between  the  versions  of  the  king,  and  of  the  other  most  important 
witnesses,  are  so  manifest,  being  publicly  acknowledged  by  James 
himself,  that,  on  the  theory  of  collusion,  they  could  not  have 
occurred.  The  stories,  if  collusive,  would  have  been  brought  into 
harmony  before  they  were  laid  before  the  world  and  a  court  of 
justice.  Of  course,  had  this  been  done,  opponents  would  have 
called  the  very  harmony  suspicious.  No  two  men  can  give 
absolutely  identical  accounts  of  the  same  sudden,  confused,  and 
startling  occurrence,  as  daily  experience  proves. 

Our  earliest  testimony  as  to  the  events  of  August  5  is  Nicholson's 
account  of  the  letter  written  for  the  king  to  the  chancellor  and 
others  on  the  night  of  August  5.  The  substance  of  this  letter  was 
orally  narrated  by  the  secretary  to  Nicholson  at  Edinburgh  on  the 
morning  of  August  6.  In  such  circumstances,  where  we  have,  first 
a  hasty  letter,  then  an  oral  repetition  of  its  tenor,  and  then  that 
tenor  redescribed,  absolute  accuracy  is  impossible.  But  the  account 
is,  essentially,  that  which  James  always  gave. 

We  now  turn  to  James's  official  version,  a  pamphlet  sent  by 
Nicholson  to  Robert  Cecil  as  early  as  September  3,  1600.  This 
version  we  can  check  by  the  depositions  of  witnesses.  His  majesty 
says  that  he  went  out  to  hunt,  in  beautiful  weather,  between  six  and 
seven  in  the  morning.  He  and  his  suite  were  clad  in  green — the 
king,  as  we  know  to  have  been  his  custom,  wearing  a  hunting-horn, 
and  no  sword.  The  Master  of  Ruthven  accosted  him  before  he 
mounted.  Why  was  Ruthven  at  Falkland  so  early  ?  That  he  was 
there  the  lay  Abbot  of  Inchaffray,  Drummond,  with  many  others, 
declared  ;  the  abbot  asked  him  to  breakfast,  but  Ruthven  declined. 
To  James,  apart,  Ruthven  told  how,  the  night  before,  he  had  caught 
a  fellow  with  a  pot  of  gold,  and,  unknown  even  to  Cowrie,  had  shut 
him  up  in  a  private  room,*  "  and  locked  many  doors  behind  him." 
James,  after  saying  that  he  had  no  claim  to  the  gold,  was  induced 
to  suspect  that  it  was  foreign  gold  (as  Ruthven  implied)  brought  in 
for  seditious  purposes.      He,  therefore,  said  that  he  would  send  a 

The  word  used  is  '"house,"  often  equivalent  to   "room"   in   Scots,   and  so 
employed  elsewhere  by  James. 


ANDREW   HENDERSON.  45  I 

warrant  to  Gowrie  and  the  bailies  of  Perth  to  examine  the  fellow^ 
and  take  care  of  the  money.  Ruthven  repHed  that  the  money,  in 
that  case,  would  be  ill  counted,  and  insisted  that  James  should 
follow  him  at  once.  The  king  characteristically  preferred  to  hunt 
first,  and  discuss  afterwards.  James  rode  after  the  hounds ; 
Ruthven  remained,  and  despatched  one  Andrew  Henderson,  a 
retainer  of  his  family,  who  was  with  him,  to  tell  Gowrie  that  James 
could  not  be  expected  for  three  hours  at  least.  This  James  tells 
from  report ;  he  saw  no  companions  with  Ruthven.  Now  the  Abbot 
of  Inchaffray  saw  only  Andrew  Ruthven  with  Alexander  Ruthven 
after  James  rode  away  from  Alexander.  We  do  not  find,  in  fact,  that 
any  witness  deponed  to  seeing  Andrew  Henderson  at  Falkland. 

Here  we  must,  for  a  moment,  desert  the  king's  narrative. 
The  point — Did  young  Ruthven  send  Henderson  from  Falkland 
to  Lord  Gowrie  at  Perth  with  the  message  that  the  king  was 
coming  ? — is  of  central  importance.  If  Henderson,  leaving  Falkland 
about  seven,  reached  Gowrie  about  ten,  then  the  visit  of  the 
king  did  not  take  Gowrie  by  surprise.  He  had  time  to  order 
luncheon.  This  he  did  not  do ;  he  appeared  later  to  be  sur- 
prised by  the  king's  arrival.  If  he  really  was  surprised,  then  he 
had  not  laid  a  plot  to  bring  James  to  his  house.  But  if  Henderson 
did  ride  about  half-past  seven  from  Falkland  with  the  news  of 
James's  coming,  as  he  swore,  and  if  he  reached  Gowrie  about  ten 
o'clock,  then  Gowrie's  failure  to  prepare  for  a  royal  guest,  who  came 
at  one  o'clock,  was  meant  as  part  of  his  pretence  that  James  had 
arrived  uninvited.  The  inference  must  be  that  Gowrie  was  engaged 
in  some  disloyal  enterprise.  And  there  was  good  evidence  from 
gentlemen  of  honour  that  Henderson  did  reach  the  Earl  about  ten 
o'clock,  and  the  modern  defenders  of  the  Ruthvens  have  to  allege 
that  Henderson  had  not  been  at  Falkland  at  all,  but  had  only 
ridden  two  or  three  miles  out  of  Perth  on  some  trivial  errand,  and 
returned.  But  the  contemporary  MS.  Vindication  of  the  Ruthvens 
alleges  that  Henderson  really  was  at  Falkland  with  Ruthven,  and 
did  carry  the  message  about  the  king's  arrival.  Why,  then,  did  he 
arrive,  not  at  ten,  but  after  noon  ?  This  the  contemporary  apologist 
answers  by  omitting  the  king's  long  hunting  of  some  four  hours — 
seven  to  eleven — and  making  Henderson  arrive  in  Perth  about  half- 
past  twelve.  The  evidence  that  he  came  to  Gowrie  about  ten  is 
excellent ;  and  the  contemporary  apologist  of  the  Ruthvens  had  no 
scruples  whatever  in  admitting  his  presence  at  Falkland. 


452  THE   POT   OF   GOLD. 

The  whole  question  is,  Had  James  summoned  Ruthven  to  Falk- 
land before  seven  in  the  morning,  and  then  pretended  that  Ruthven 
had  invited  him  to  Perth?  Or,  did  Ruthven  invite  James  to 
Perth,  and  warn  Cowrie,  by  Henderson,  of  his  success?  while 
Gowrie  pretended  not  to  have  received  any  such  news  from 
Henderson.  The  Ruthven  apologist  (1600),  by  admitting  that 
Henderson  brought  the  news,  while  falsifying  the  hour  of  his  arrival, 
raises  a  very  strong  surmise  in  favour  of  the  second  alternative — 
Gowrie  was  bringing  the  king  to  Perth  for  no  good,  and  no 
avowable  purpose. 

Returning  to  the  king's  narrative,  he  goes  on  to  say  that,  during 
a  check,  he  sent  some  one  to  find  Ruthven.  To  Ruthven  he 
announced  his  intention  to  ride  to  Gowrie's  house  when  the  hunt 
was  over.  James  was  thrown  out  by  this  delay,  but  followed,  and 
they  killed  about  eleven  o'clock.  Ruthven  would  not  let  him 
stay  to  see  the  deer  broken  up  {la  curee),  or  wait  for  a  second 
horse,  which  was  brought  after  him  at  a  gallop,  or  even  to  put  on 
his  sword.  Lennox  and  Mar  did  wait  for  their  second  mounts  (the 
hunt  ended  close  to  the  stables),  and  followed,  though  Ruthven 
wished  James  to  prevent  them.  His  action  made  James  think 
Ruthven  but  dubiously  sane ;  and  he  whispered  his  doubts  to 
Lennox,  who,  at  the  trial,  corroborated  the  king's  statement.  Lennox 
"  did  not  like"  the  story  of  the  pot  of  gold,  and  James  bade  him 
keep  near  his  person  whenever  he  went  alone  with  Ruthven.  But 
Ruthven  now  insisted,  says  James,  that  the  king  should  be  alone 
with  him  at  the  first  view  of  the  gold.  James  rode  on,  much 
bewildered  "  between  trust  and  distrust,"  he  says.  Ruthven  then 
sent  Andrew  Ruthven  to  warn  Gowrie,  and  himself  quitted  the  king 
at  a  mile  from  Perth,  and  rode  forward  to  see  his  brother.  Gowrie 
left  his  dinner  when  Ruthven  arrived,  and  met  James  with  some 
sixty  men  (his  apologist  says,  with  two  only)  on  the  Inch.  The 
king  had  to  wait  long  for  his  dinner,  the  cook  having  to  beg  for 
grouse  here,  and  mutton  there,  and  eke  out  with  pastry. 

Gowrie,  as  we  saw,  had  given  out  before  that  he  was  going  to 
Dirleton  that  evening,  and  had  sent  his  "  provisions  "  thither.  This, 
of  course,  confirmed  Ruthven's  story  that  Gowrie  knew  nothing  of 
his  ride  to  bring  the  king,  and  was  wholly  unprepared.  James 
was  impatient  for  a  view  of  the  gold,  but  Ruthven  begged  him  to 
say  nothing  in  Gowrie's  presence.  During  the  delay  one  of  the 
retinue.  Sir  Thomas  Erskine,  sent  his  servant  to  the  town  to  buy 


THE  TURRET.  453 

him  a  pair  of  green  silk  hose  to  dine  in  comfortably.^^  At  last 
James  dined,  Gowrie  standing  in  attendance  with  Ruthven,  in  a  room 
off  the  hall,  and  often  leaving  the  chamber.  In  the  hall  the  suite 
were  met,  dropping  in  at  intervals.  At  first  they  were  thirteen  in 
all.  Their  dinner  came  later  than  James's,  and  Gowrie  entered  the 
hall,  bidding  them  drink  "  the  king's  scoll,"  or  pledge.  They  all 
then  rose,  and  expected  James  ;  but  Gowrie  said,  "  His  majesty  was 
gone  up  quietly  some  quiet  errand," — so  Lennox,  I^Iar,  and  others 
averred.  As  soon  as  Gowrie  left  the  inner  room  for  the  hall,  James 
bade  Ruthven  bring  Sir  Thomas  Erskine,  but  Ruthven  implored 
James  to  come  alone  with  him.  The  pair  walked  through  the  end 
of  the  hall,  and  this  was  the  last  that  his  suite  saw  ot  the  king  till 
James,  very  red,  bellowed  "treason"  and  "murder"  out  of  a  turret 
window. 

Meanwhile,  just  after  James  and  Ruthven  passed  across  the  hall, 
Gowrie  led  Lennox  and  others,  but  not  Mar,  who  visited  the  room 
where  the  king  dined,  into  the  garden  beside  the  Tay.  Here  they 
ate  cherries,  while  Ruthven  took  James  upstairs  through  three  or 
four  rooms  en  suite,  locking  each  door  behind  them.  Later, 
we  only  hear  of  resistance  from  one  locked  door,  though  two,  at 
least,  were  locked — one  from  the  gallery  into  the  chamber,  one 
from  the  chamber  into  the  turret.  That  a  man  so  nervous  as 
James  permitted  this  may  be  explained  by  the  circumstance  that  he 
had  dined.  The  Rev.  Patrick  Galloway  averred  that  the  doors 
"checkit  to"  with  some  kind  of  spring  lock  (sermon  of  August 
ii).2*  At  all  events  locked  one  door  was,  for  the  king's  retinue, 
later,  could  not  force  a  way  in,  though  they  broke  a  hole  in  the  door. 
No  critic  questions  that  fact.  If  it  is  hard  to  see  why  James  let 
Ruthven  lock  the  doors,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  he  locked 
himself  in  alone  with  Ruthven,  or  that  the  porter,  or  James's  page, 
Ramsay,  had  been  bribed  to  do  it,  as  has  been  suggested.  But 
locked  the  doors  were. 

Finally,  the  pair  reached  the  turret,  off  a  chamber  off  the  gallery. 
This  turret  had  a  door  which  Ruthven  locked.  If  the  long  gallery 
had  a  door,  that  was  not  locked,  but  locked  was  the  door  between 
the  gallery  and  this  chamber,  and  locked  now  was  the  door  between 
the  chamber  and  the  turret.  Therein  was  nothing  but  a  man 
(namely,  Andrew  Henderson,  as  was  later  proved),  said  by  James  to 
have  worn  a  dagger,  secret  coat-of-mail,  and  "plate-sleeves." 
Ruthven  now  put  on  his  hat,  drew  the  man's  dagger,  held  the  point 


454  THE   KING   SAID   TO   HAVE   RIDDEN   AWAY. 

to  the  king,  and  "  avowed  that  the  king  behoved  to  be  at  his  will, 
and  do  as  he  list." 

James,  according  to  his  tale,  behaved  with  great  coolness  (as 
when  Bothwell  captured  him  in  Holyrood),  bade  Ruthven  uncover, 
and  promised  to  be  absolutely  secret  about  the  whole  affair  if  it 
went  no  further.  Ruthven  was  now  in  a  dilemma.  There  was  no 
use  in  killing  James,  and,  with  a  witness  present  who  certainly  would 
not  help  him  to  bind  James,  what  could  he  do  ?  According  to  the 
system  of  secrecy  (which  Gowrie  is  said  to  have  applauded,  shortly 
before,  in  talk  with  the  Rev,  Mr  Cowper,  who  told  Spottiswoode), 
Henderson  had  not  been  prepared  for  his  part.  A  healthy  High- 
lander or  Borderer,  of  the  Gowrie  clientage,  would  either  have  aided 
Ruthven  (in  which  case  James  would  have  been  trussed  like  a 
chicken),  or  would  have  boldly  taken  the  king's  part.  Henderson 
merely  trembled  and  murmured.  Ruthven  now  lost  his  head.  He 
made  James  swear  that  he  would  not  cry  out  or  open  the  window, 
and  he  left  the  turret,  locking  the  door  behind  him.  He  said  that 
he  would  consult  Gowrie,  but  that  he  found  to  be  impossible 
probably  ;  Henderson  thought  he  lurked  outside  the  door. 

Gowrie,  we  saw,  when  James  went  upstairs,  took  Lennox  and 
others  into  the  garden.  While  they  were  there,  and  while  James 
was  upstairs,  one  Mr  Thomas  Cranstoun,  a  retainer  of  Gowrie, 
approached  them,  saying  that  James  had  mounted,  and  was  riding 
through  the  Inch. 

Cranstoun  (who  was  tortured,  tried,  and  hanged)  admitted  that  he 
did  bring  this  "  report  and  bruit,"  ^^  but  in  good  faith.  From  that 
moment  Gowrie  was  fully  occupied  and  surrounded  by  people. 
Ruthven  either  found  this  out  when  he  left  James  locked  up  in  the 
turret,  or,  more  probably,  suspected  that  he  could  not  consult  Gowrie, 
and  merely  loitered  about,  confused  and  irresolute.  James,  mean- 
while, finding  that  the  armed  man,  by  his  confession,  knew  not 
wherefore  he  was  there,  bade  him  open  the  turret  window,  which  he 
had  promised  not  to  do  with  his  own  hand.  The  man,  as  James 
told  him,  opened  the  wrong  window,  not  the  window  giving  on  the 
gateway.  Gowrie,  in  the  garden,  on  hearing  Cranstoun's  message 
that  the  king  had  ridden  off,  called  for  his  horse,  which,  as  Crans- 
toun told  him,  was  at  Scone,  twO' miles  away. 

The  arrangement  is  obvious.  It  was  to  be  said  that  the  king 
had  ridden  homeward,  his  suite  would  follow,  and  be  out  of  the 
way,  Gowrie  would  not  be  able  to  accompany  them  (as  was  his  duty). 


THE   KING   CRIES    "TREASON!"  455 

because  his  horse,  unluckily,  was  at  Scone,  across  the  Tay,  about 
two  miles  off  to  the  east.  This  was  well  planned  ;  but  here  the 
system  of  secrecy  again  proved  fatal.  The  porter,  Christie,  not 
trained  in  his  part,  denied  that  James  could  have  ridden  out,  he 
himself  had  the  key  of  the  back  gate  in  his  pocket,  or  at  his  girdle. 
Cowrie  give  the  porter  the  lie,  and  said  that  he  would  ascertain  the 
truth. 

Now,  at  this  point  Cowrie's  conduct  is  wholly  incompatible  with 
innocence.  We  give  the  facts  in  the  words  of  Lennox :  "  I  am 
sure,"  said  Cowrie,  "  that  the  king  is  forth ;  nevertheless,  stay,  my 
Lord  Duke,  and  I  shall  go  up  and  get  your  lordship  the  verity  and 
truth  thereof"  And  the  said  Earl  of  Cowrie  passed  up,  and  incon- 
tinent came  down  again  into  the  close,  and  he  affirmed  to  the 
deponent  "  that  the  king  was  forth  at  the  back  gate,  and  away."  ^^ 
Inchaffray  and  Moncrief  corroborated.  Nicholson's  letter  of  August  6 
tells  the  same  tale.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  the  fact.  Cowrie 
went  up  the  great  staircase,  and  returned  once  more,  assuring  the 
gentlemen  that  the  king  had  ridden  away.  Whether  he  met  the 
Master  (which  is  improbable),  or  not.  Cowrie  deliberately  lied. 
Except  on  a  theory  of  wholesale  perjury  by  Lennox  and  others, 
it  is  certain  that  Cowrie,  after  pretending  to  go  and  inquire,  falsely 
alleged  that  James  had  left  his  house.  For  this  he  could  have  only 
one  motive,  to  get  the  royal  suite  to  ride  off  and  leave  James  alone 
to  his  fate.  The  lords  then  went  to  the  front  gate,  and  thence  into 
the  street,  awaiting  their  horses,  and  talking  over  the  matter.  Had 
Cowrie  not  led  to  their  arrival  on  that  side  of  the  house,  the  cries 
which  James  presently  raised  would  not  have  been  heard  by  his 
retinue. 

While  these  things  were  happening  downstairs  young  Ruthven 
had  again  rushed  into  the  turret ;  probably  he  had  not  seen  his 
brother  ;  probably  he  had  been  deliberating  on  his  desperate  situa- 
tion. He  declared  that  James  must  die ;  but,  instead  of  stabbing 
him,  tried  to  bind  his  hands  with  a  garter  later  found  on  the  floor 
of  the  room.  James  snatched  away  his  left  hand  and  leaped  free, 
making  for  the  turret  window.  Ruthven  seized  and  tried  to  gag  him 
with  his  hand,  but  the  window  was  pushed  up,  and  the  gentlemen 
outside  heard  the  king  yell  "Treason  !"  and  saw  his  face  very  red, 
and  a  hand  at  his  mouth.  Lennox,  Mar,  and  others  at  once  ran 
into  the  house  by  the  main  front  entry,  and  up  the  chief  staircase, 
but    could    not    force    the    door    which    the    Master    had    locked. 


45^  RAMSAY   TO   THE   RESCUE. 

Soon,  as  they  battered  at  the  door,  they  heard  a  noise  of  fighting 
within. 

The  cause  was  this  :  while  Ruthven  and  James  fought  and  wrestled 
in  and  out  of  the  turret  and  adjoining  chamber,  young  John  Ramsay, 
a  page,  hearing  James's  cries  as  he  stood  about  the  stable  door,  ran 
up  a  small  narrow  winding  stair,  not  noticed  by  the  others,  which 
led  into  the  chamber  giving  on  the  turret,  and  was  nearer  him  than 
the  main  door  and  great  staircase.  Either  Henderson  opened  or 
unlocked  the  door,  or  Ramsay  drove  open  the  door,  and  caught  a 
glimpse  of  a  figure  (Henderson)  by  the  door,  but  took  no  heed  of 
it,  as  he  found  Ruthven  and  the  king  struggling.  Ruthven  was  still 
trying  to  gag  James  with  his  hand  ;  James  had  "  got  Ruthven's  head 
in  chancery."  James  shouted,  "  Strike  low,  he  has  a  secret  mail 
doublet,"  and  set  his  foot  on  the  hawk's  leash ;  Ramsay  cast 
loose  the  king's  hawk,  which  was  on  his  wrist,  and  struck  high  at 
Ruthven's  face  and  neck.  James  later  admitted  that  he  might  have 
bidden  Ramsay  spare  Ruthven,  but,  as  he  said,  "  Man,  I  had  neither 
God  nor  devil  before  my  eyes,  but  my  own  defence."  He  thrust 
the  wounded  Ruthven  down  the  steep  cork-screw  staircase,  while 
Ramsay,  from  the  turret  window,  bade  Sir  Thomas  Erskine  come 
up.  Erskine,  like  the  others,  had  heard  the  king's  cry  from  the 
window,  he  ran  towards  the  house,  and  meeting  Gowrie  outside, 
some  distance  from  the  front  door,  called  him  "  traitor,"  and  tried 
to  seize  him.  "What  is  the  matter?"  asked  Gowrie.  A  crowd  of 
his  retainers  separated  Erskine  from  him,  and  then  Erskine  heard 
Ramsay's  call  from  the  turret  window.  Dr  Hugh  Harries  (a  man 
lame  from  a  club-foot),  and  another  man,  Wilson,  ran  with  Erskine 
up  the  narrow  stair,  stabbing  young  Ruthven  to  death  as  they  passed. 
They  found  James  safe  ;  but  Gowrie,  with  some  of  his  men,  including 
Cranstoun,  was  close  on  their  heels.  There  were  now  in  the  larger 
chamber,  which  had  a  door  opening  into  the  turret,  the  king,  Ramsay, 
Harries,  Erskine,  and  a  servant  named  Wilson.  As  James  had  no 
sword,  his  friends  locked  him  into  the  turret  and  stood  on  guard. 
Calderwood  says  that  only  Gowrie  and  Cranstoun  fought  against  the 
king's  four  men  ;  on  the  other  side,  the  king's  party  averred  that  at 
least  seven  other  men  were  with  Gowrie.  Several  witnesses  later 
saw  some  of  them  bleeding;  they  fled  and  would  not  appear 
when  summoned.  They  were  two  Ruthvens,  two  Moncriefs,  and 
one  Eviot. 

The  position  of  James  was  now  alarming.     Only  the  door  of  the 


DEATH   OF   GOWRIE.  457 

turret  separated  him  from  the  chamber  where  his  four  friends  fought 
six  or  eight  of  the  Gowrie  party,  while  the  locked  door  between  this 
room  and  the  gallery  rang  with  hammer-strokes,  dealt  by  whom? 
That  this  really  was  James's  situation,  alone,  locked  up,  a  crowd 
hammering  at  one  door,  an  unequal  fight  swaying  to  and  fro  in  the 
chamber  from  which  but  a  door  separated  him,  is  absolutely  certain. 
Was  James  the  man  to  put  himself  in  such  a  perilous  place  on  the 
off-chance  that  his  friends  might  have  the  better  of  Cowrie's  ?  The 
friends  of  this  hypothesis  also  maintain,  inconsistently,  that  James 
was  an  abject  coward. 

The  hammers  rang,  the  swords  clashed  in  the  chamber  next  the 
turret  where  the  king  stood  alone.  In  the  melee  several  men  were 
wounded  on  both  sides,  but  Ramsay  at  last  ran  Gowrie  through  the 
body.  Most  writers  aver  that  Gowrie,  hearing  an  opponent  cry, 
"  You  have  slain  the  king,"  dropped  his  points  (he  had  twin 
swords  in  one  scabbard),  and  that  Ramsay  then  lunged  at  him.^'^ 
Gowrie  fell  dead,  his  retainers  fled ;  Ramsay  and  the  others  let 
James  out  of  his  turret,  and  with  a  hammer  passed  by  the  Lennox 
party  through  a  broken  panel  opened  the  locked  door,  at  which 
Mar  and  Lennox  with  their  men  had  vainly  battered.  Even  now, 
according  to  Lennox,  some  of  the  Gowrie  faction  struck  under  the 
door  (from  the  staircase)  with  halberts,  and  wounded  one  of  the 
Murrays  who  was  with  Lennox  and  the  king.  On  hearing  Lennox's 
voice  these  assailants  ran,  and  the  king  with  his  party,  kneeling  on 
the  bloody  floor  where  the  dead  Gowrie  lay,  offered  their  thanks  to 
Heaven. 

To  suppose  that  James  wilfully  put  himself  within  reach  of  these 
perils  as  part  of  a  plot  to  murder  the  Gowries,  is  to  show  extreme 
credulity.  How  things  were  probably  planned  is  plain  enough. 
Henderson  should  have  helped  Ruthven  to  master  and  gag  James ; 
the  royal  suite  should  have  ridden  off  after  their  king,  said  to  have 
made  for  Falkland,  then  James  would  have  been  carried,  perhaps  on 
horseback,  down  the  north  side  of  Tay  to  Dundee,  or  across  Fife  to 
Elie,  and  shipped  for  Uirleton.  When  the  courtiers,  not  finding 
trace  of  the  king,  rode  back  to  Perth,  the  Ruthvens  (with  his  majesty) 
would  be  on  their  way,  nominally  to  Dirleton,  really  perhaps  to 
Fastcastle.  That  so  many  men  attended  the  king  was  what  Ruthven, 
according  to  James,  had  tried  to  prevent.  Gowrie's  nervous  anxiety, 
while  he  was  with  James  alone  in  the  small  inner  dining-room,  is 
easily  explained ;  the  king  was  too  well  attended.     But  the  Master 


458  THE   KING   RETURNS   TO   FALKLAND. 

of  Ruthven  persevered,  he  could  not  desist,  for  he  could  not  explain 
away  his  story  of  the  pot  of  gold.  Henderson  failed  him,  the  rest 
was  despair  and  action  without  a  plan.  Thus  construed,  the  whole 
affair  is  intelligible  ;  otherwise  it  is  not. 

To  the  townsfolk  one  fact  only  was  clear :  their  young  provost 
and  his  brother  were  slain.  The  town  bells  rang,  rumours  flew 
about,  the  people  gathered  :  men  and  women,  shaking  their  fists  at 
the  windows  of  the  house,  cried,  "  Come  down,  green  coats,  ye 
have  committed  murder,"  and  clamoured  for  revenge,  James 
spoke  from  the  window,  he  called  in  the  baihes,  he  showed  the 
dead  and  told  the  tale,  the  people  were  persuaded  to  return  to  their 
houses,  but  the  sun  had  fallen  before  James  could  ride  through  the 
lingering  rainy  twilight  back  to  Falkland.  Next  day,  as  we  saw, 
news  from  James  arrived  in  Edinburgh.  There  were  some  who 
said  that  Nicholson,  the  English  resident,  had  been  seen  at  Leith, 
in  the  dawn  of  August  6,  awaiting  news  from  beyond  the  Firth  of 
Forth,  a  rumour  which  he  indignantly  denies.  In  Edinburgh  the 
preachers  found  that  they  could  not  conscientiously  preach,  as 
desired,  against  treason,  "  seeing  the  king  made  no  mention  of 
treason  in  his  bill,"  and  the  reports  of  courtiers  varied  among  them- 
selves. David  Lindsay,  a  preacher,  arrived  from  Falkland,  the 
preaching  was  entrusted  to  him  ;  he  harangued  at  the  Cross,  and 
the  guns  were  fired. 

The  brothers  of  the  Ruthvens  fled  from  Edinburgh  to  Dirleton, 
and  thence  to  Berwick.  They  were  young  boys,  but  James,  who 
raged  against  all  that  dangerous  house,  had  sent  to  apprehend  them. 
At  court,  where  Beatrix  Ruthven  was  dear  to  the  queen,  there  had 
been  lamenting,  and  the  name  of  Anne  of  Denmark  was  mingled  in 
the  suspicions  and  tattle  of  the  gossips,  with  talk  about  a  magical 
amulet  of  Cowrie's  which,  probably,  as  we  have  said,  he  was  foolish 
enough  to  wear  in  a  kind  of  "medicine-bag."  Such  things  are 
worn  by  gamblers  unto  this  day.  Lord  Hailes  proves  that  the 
practice  was  very  common,  abroad,  in  Cowrie's  time. 

Meanwhile  at  Falkland  efforts  were  being  made  to  clear  up  the 
plot.  The  unhappy  Mr  Cranstoun,  Cowrie's  equerry,  a  brother  of 
Cranstoun  of  Cranstoun,  was  wounded  and  could  not  fly.  He 
had  been  in  France  for  more  than  ten  years,  and  had  returned  with 
Gowrie.  On  August  6  he  was  examined,  no  doubt  under  torture. 
He  had  not  seen  Cowrie  or  Ruthven,  he  said,  to  interchange  six 
words  with  them,  for  a  fortnight.     They  had  been  in  AthoU,  and 


EVIDENCE   01    CRAIGINGELT.  459 

the  mention  of  a  fortnight  looks  as  if  they  had  gone  thither  about 
July  20.  Nothing  could  be  got  out  of  Cranstoun.  On  August  16, 
Craigingelt,  Gowrie's  caterer  or  under- steward,  was  examined. 
Nothing  could  be  extracted  from  him  as  to  a  conspiracy.  But  he 
had  been  unaware  of  Ruthven's  early  ride  to  Falkirk.  Meeting  the 
Master,  booted,  on  the  stairs,  when  he  returned,  Craigingelt  asked 
him  "  where  he  had  been  ?  "  who  answered,  "  An  errand  not  far  off." 
This  answer,  obviously,  was  intended  to  disguise  Ruthven's  long 
ride  to  bring  James  from  Falkland  to  Perth.  Craigingelt  asked  why 
the  king  had  come  ?  Ruthven  replied,  "  Robert  Abercromby,  that 
false  knave,  had  brought  the  king  there,  to  cause  his  majesty  take 
order  for  his  debt."  Ruthven,  in  this  story,  had  only  met  the  king 
casually,  when  himself  returning  from  "  an  errand  not  far  off."  As 
to  Robert  Abercromby,  it  has  been  suggested  that  he  was  a  creditor 
of  Gowrie  for  sums  disbursed  for  the  king,  by  the  first  Earl,  executed 
in  1584.  We  have  seen  that  James,  in  June,  had  given  Gowrie  a 
year's  exemption  from  pursuit  of  creditors.  Moreover,  he  appears 
to  have  himself  satisfied  this  Robert  Abercromby,  who  was  his 
saddler.  Under  the  treasurership  of  the  first  Earl  of  Gowrie,  and 
of  his  successor  Sir  Robert  Melville,  James,  up  to  1594,  had  owed 
Abercromby  more  than  ^^5000  Scots.  But,  in  1587,  James  had 
promised  Abercromby  twelve  monks'  "  portions  "  of  the  abbacy  of 
Cowper,  these  including  the  "  portions "  of  dean  and  sub-prior. 
This  gift  or  payment  (part  payment  probably)  was  ratified  in  the 
Parliament  of  1594.^^  If  any  of  Gowrie's  father's  debt,  really  the 
king's  debt,  to  Abercromby,  was  unliquidated  in  1600,  still,  Gowrie 
had  an  exemption,  and  it  was  an  impossible  story  of  Ruthven's  that 
the  king  was  acting  as  debt-collector.  It  seems  of  a  piece  with 
Ruthven's  "errand  not  far  off."  Craigingelt  had  been  in  arms  during 
the  tumult.  He,  Cranstoun,  and  one  Barron,  also  seen  in  arms,  were 
hanged.  On  August  20,  Gowrie's  tutor,  Mr  Rhynd,  was  tortured. 
He  spoke  of  Gowrie's  talisman  ;  his  other  evidence  was  not  impor- 
tant, but  he  said  that  Andrew  Ruthven  told  him,  in  Gowrie's 
presence,  that  he,  Henderson,  and  the  Master,  had  been  at  Falk- 
land. He  had  previously  told  the  minister  of  Perth,  Cowper,  that 
Gowrie  was  wont  to  argue  on  the  necessity  of  secrecy  in  "  high  and 
dangerous  purposes."  To  Cowper,  Gowrie  had  recently  said  the 
same  thing,  a  propos  of  a  passage  in  a  book,  not  identified,  which 
Cowper  found  him  reading. 

None  of  these  men  knew  of  any  plot.     The  great  object  at  Falk- 


460  HENDERSON   VANISHES. 

land  was  to  find  the  man  in  the  turret.  Where  was  he  ?  and  who 
was  he  ?  Ramsay,  entering  the  turret,  caught  only  a  glimpse  of  a 
man  behind  the  king.  After  he  wounded  Ruthven  the  man  had 
vanished  like  a  ghost.  And  where  was  Andrew  Henderson  ?  Calder- 
wood  (who  is  not  invariably  correct)  tells  us  that  the  turret  man 
was  first  advertised  for  as  "  a  black  grim  man,''  a  Mr  Robert  Oliphant, 
M.A.  But  Oliphant  had  an  alibi ;  it  is  necessary  to  keep  an 
eye  on  this  gentleman.  Two  or  three  other  persons  were  suspected  : 
one  was  slain  when  trying  to  hide,  and  Calderwood  says  that 
Galloway  showed  James  the  corpse,  and  said  that  there  lay  the  man 
of  the  turret. 29  The  turret  man  had  vanished,  and  Henderson  had 
disappeared.  He  had  been  seen  returned  to  Gowrie  House,  booted, 
from  a  ride,  by  two  gentlemen  named  Hay,  and  by  Mr  John  Mon- 
crief,  who  were  with  Gowrie  on  the  morning  of  August  5.  To  a 
question  of  Moncrief's,  Henderson  had  replied  that  he  "  had  been 
a  mile  or  two  above  the  town."  Hitherto  no  man  had  any  later 
knowledge  of  Henderson.  He  was  not  seen  in  the  brawl  at  the 
house,  or  among  the  townsfolk.  The  Ruthven  apologist  declares 
that  he  waited  on  the  lords  who  dined  in  the  hall ;  Calderwood, 
that  he  was  seen  eating  an  egg  in  the  kitchen,  and  Perth  tradition 
avers  that  he  was  at  Scone  all  day,  and  only  heard  of  the  tragedy  as 
he  crossed  the  bridge  on  the  way  home  to  Perth.  Meanwhile, 
though  Henderson  had  vanished  like  the  man  in  the  turret,  nobody 
knew  why  he  had  fled.  He  had  done  no  harm.  Even  if  he  had 
ridden  to  Falkland  and  back  with  the  INIaster  (which  nobody  could 
prove)  there  was  no  harm  in  that.  Andrew  Ruthven  had  made  the 
same  journeys,  and  there  is  no  sign  that  he  was  molested.  But 
Henderson  had  fled,  as  had  five  gentlemen,  friends  or  cousins  of 
the  Ruthvens,  who  had  been  with  Gowrie  in  the  fight  in  the 
chamber,  and,  later,  had  been  conspicuous  in  the  riot.  On  August  1 2 
these  men  and  Henderson  were  denounced  for  not  appearing  to 
give  evidence  when  summoned.^^  The  others  had  reasons  for 
absconding,  because  they  had  been  at  sword  strokes  with  the  king's 
friends,  but  what  reason  had  Henderson  ?  Now,  as  two  men  had 
disappeared,  he  of  the  turret  who  had  good  reason  to  be  afraid,  and 
Henderson  who  had  none,  it  was  an  obvious  inference  that  Hen- 
derson and  the  turret  man  were  one  and  the  same. 

This  fact  became  apparent  even  before  Henderson  was  denounced 
on  August  12.  On  Sunday,  August  11,  James  had  entered  Edin- 
burgh in  state,  and,  seated  on  a  carpet  at  the  Town  Cross,  had 


HENDERSON    TURNS    KING'S   EVIDENCE.  461 

heard  his  chaplain,  Galloway,  tell  the  story  of  the  tragedy  to  the 
people.  Galloway  gave  the  king's  version,  and  ended  by  producing 
a  letter  sent  by  Henderson  from  his  place  of  hiding.  Henderson 
was  factor,  or  chamberlain,  of  the  lands  of  Scone,  Galloway  had  been 
minister  of  Perth,  and  knew  Henderson  well.  The  preacher 
produced  the  letter,  any  one  who  knew  Henderson's  hand  might 
examine  it.  The  extract  read  was  to  the  effect  that,  early  on 
August  5,  Gowrie  sent  Henderson  to  ride  to  Falkland  with  the 
Master,  and  to  bring  his  message.  On  Henderson's  return  Gowrie 
bade  him  put  on  his  secret  coat  of  mail,  and  his  plate  sleeves,  and 
to  wait  for  the  Master,  and  do  as  the  Master  ordered  him.  Later, 
the  Master  locked  Henderson  up  in  the  turret.  He  now  suspected 
treason  and  betook  himself  to  prayer.  The  Master  led  the  king  into 
the  turret,  and,  said  Galloway,  "  the  rest  differs  almost  nothing  from 
what  you  have  heard,"  that  is  from  the  king's  narrative.^^ 

Between  August  12  and  August  20,  Henderson  delivered  himself 
up  as  a  kind  of  king's  evidence.  On  August  20  he  was  examined 
at  Falkland  by  the  Council,  James  not  being  present.  He  adhered 
to  his  tale  about  being  locked  up,  armed,  in  the  turret,  and 
corroborated  James  for  the  rest ;  except  that  he  said  he  wrested 
the  dagger  from  Ruthven's  hand.  He  also  declared  that  Ruthven 
asked  James  to  make  a  "promise,"  the  nature  of  which  Gowrie 
would  explain.  It  has  been  fancied  that  this  promise  referred  to 
Gowrie's  debts.  But  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  Ruthvens 
would  attempt  to  extort  such  a  promise  by  secluding  the  king  in  a 
closet  with  an  armed  man.  They  would  be  guilty  of  treason  to  no 
purpose,  for  no  such  extorted  promise  could  be  binding.  Possibly 
the  word  "  promise "  got  into  Henderson's  memory  from  the 
parallel  passage  in  the  king's  narrative,  where  "promise  of  life  "  to 
James  is  mentioned.^-  Henderson,  in  fact,  tried  to  disguise  his  own 
poltroonery.  James  added  his  deposition  to  his  own  narrative, 
printed  at  the  end  of  August,  with  the  warning  that,  if  Henderson's 
contained  discrepancies,  "  they  were  uttered  in  his  own  behoof  for 
obtaining  of  his  majesty's  princely  grace  and  favour."  ^^ 

Before  the  trial,  held  by  the  Parliament  in  Edinburgh,  in 
November,  for  the  forfeiture  of  the  Ruthvens,  Henderson  was 
examined  before  the  Lords  of  the  Articles.  His  evidence  was  much 
to  the  same  effect  as  before,  but  he  omitted  his  wresting  of  the 
dagger  from  Ruthven,  and  there  were  variations  about  opening  the 
window.^'* 


462  HENDERSON   IN    THE   PLOT? 

On  these  points  Hudson,  who  interrogated  both  the  king  and 
Henderson,  wrote  sensibly  to  Cecil  from  Edinburgh,  on  October 
1 9  :  ^^ — 

...  I  have  had  conference  of  this  last  acsyon,  first  v/^^  the  king,  at  length,  and 
then  w'^'^  Henderson,  but  my  speache  was  first  w*''  Henderson  befoar  the  king 
came  over  the  waiter,  betwixt  whoame  I  fynde  no  difference  but  y*  boath  alegethe 
takinge  the  dager  frome  Alexander  Ruthven,  w^*^  stiyf,  on  the  one  part,  male 
seame  to  agment  honor,  &  on  the  other  to  move  mersy  by  moar  merit :  it  is  plaen 
yt  the  king  only  by  God's  help  defendid  his  owin  lyfif  wel  &  that  a  longetyme,  or 
els  he  had  lost  it :  it  is  not  trew  that  Mr  Alex,  spok  w^^  his  brother  when  he  went 
out,  nor  that  Henderson  unlokt  the  door,  but  haste  &  neglect  of  Mr  Alex,  left  it 
opin,  wherat  Sr  Jhon  Ramsay  entrid,  and  after  hime  Sr  Tho.  Ereskyn,  Sr  Hew 
Haris  &  Wilsone.  That  it  is  not  generally  trustid  is  ot  mallice,  &  preoccupassyon  of 
mens  mynds  by  the  minesters  defidence  at  the  first,  /or  this  people  are  apt  to  beleve 
the  worst  6^  loath  to  depart  frovte  y''  fayth. 

The  other  witnesses,  Mar,  Lennox,  many  of  James's  retinue, 
friends  of  Gowrie,  and  burgesses  of  Perth,  gave,  before  the  Lords  of 
the  Articles  in  November,  testimony  to  all  that  they  had  observed. 

Parliament  condemned  the  Ruthvens,  their  dead  bodies  were 
mutilated,  their  lands  were  forfeited,  and  shared  among  those  who 
had  been  with  the  king.  Henderson  was  allowed  to  retain  his 
factorship,  and  received  a  pension. 

Now  Henderson's  tale  was  not  easily  credible  How  could  the 
Gowries  expect  a  man,  armed,  but  unapprized  of  what  was  expected, 
to  aid  in  seizing  the  royal  person  ?  The  world  thought  either  that 
Henderson  was  suborned  to  tell  his  tale,  there  having  been  no  man 
in  the  turret  at  all ;  or  that  the  king  somehow  had  him  locked  up  in 
the  turret,  or  that  he  had  really  been  initiated  into  the  plot,  but  had 
lost  courage  when  confronted  with  his  task.  The  first  suggestion  is 
impossible.  James  would  not,  on  the  evening  of  the  occurrences, 
make  his  narrative  turn  on  a  non-existent  man  in  the  turret,  and  then 
take  the  chance  of  finding  a  person  ready  to  swear  to  be  that  man. 
The  second  idea,  that  James  could  suborn  a  factor  of  Gowrie  to  be 
locked  up,  armed,  in  a  turret  of  Cowrie's  own  house,  and  that 
unknown  to  the  Earl  and  his  brother,  is  absurd.  But  the  third 
theory,  that  Henderson  had  been  initiated  into  the  plot,  had  been 
unable  to  reveal  it  or  refuse  to  join  it,  and  had  played  the  weakling 
at  the  crisis,  is  not  improbable  in  itself  Henderson,  if  approached 
by  Gowrie,  would  not  dare  to  refuse  to  join  his  master,  still  less 
would  he  risk  torture  by  revealing  a  conspiracy  which  he  could  not 
prove. 


EVIDENCE   OF   OLIPHANT.  463 

Here  comes  in  Caldeiwood's  Mr  Robert  Oliphant,  who  was 
originally  suspected  of  having  been  the  man  in  the  turret,  but  proved 
an  alibi.  Though  no  historian  has  remarked  the  fact,  Oliphant  let 
out  that,  both  in  Paris  and  in  Scotland,  Gowrie  had  asked  him  to 
play  the  part  of  the  man  in  the  turret.  Oliphant  was  a  gentleman, 
brother  of  Oliphant  of  Bauchiltoun.  He  tried  to  dissuade  Gowrie 
from  the  enterprise,  but,  failing  here,  withdrew  from  Perth  before 
the  fatal  day.  This  talk,  held  by  Oliphant  in  a  house  in  the 
Canongate  at  the  end  of  November  or  beginning  of  December, 
leaked  out,  and  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Privy  Council,  so 
Oliphant  "  fled  again."  This  we  learn  from  Nicholson,  writing  on 
December  5,  1600.^*^ 

On  the  same  day  the  affair  appears  in  the  Acts  of  Caution  (in 
the  Privy  Council  Register).  Much  later,  in  1608,  Oliphant  was 
arrested  in  England,  and  was  in  prison  for  nine  months,  but  his 
captor,  a  Captain  Patrick  Heron,  did  not  appear  against  him,  and 
he  was  released.^'^  If  Oliphant  spoke  truth,  and  is  correctly  reported, 
it  follows  that  Gowrie  had  the  plot  in  his  mind  before  his  return 
from  France,  and  it  is  probable  that  Henderson  had  been  taken 
into  the  conspiracy,  but  had  "fainted"  (as  Oliphant  said)  at  the 
critical  moment.  He  then  made  his  peace  by  his  revelations. 
The  defenders  of  the  Ruthvens  do  not  explain  why  Henderson  ran 
away  and  hid  if  he  had  no  part  in  the  transaction. 

The  sceptics  at  the  time,  including  Mr  Robert  Bruce,  said  that 
they  would  believe  Henderson's  tale  if  he  were  hanged  and 
adhered  to  it  on  the  scaffold.  Had  this  occurred  they  would  still 
have  disbelieved,  and  would  have  declared  that  Henderson  was 
bribed  by  promises  of  benefit  to  his  wife  and  family.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  Mr  Bruce,  after  first  cross-examining  the  king,  believed  that 
he  was  innocent  of  any  plot  against  the  Ruthvens,  but  guilty  of 
passion  in  bidding  Ramsay  strike  the  Master,  so  Calderwood  says 
<vi.  156). 

For  the  reasons  already  given,  the  writer  believes  that  Gowrie,  a 
very  young  man, — familiar,  probably,  with  romantic  incidents  of 
Italian  conspiracy,- — had  really  contrived  a  plot  against  the  king. 
If  so,  the  nature  of  his  intentions  after  securing  James  remains 
obscure.  The  idea  clearly  was  to  bring  the  king,  with  only  three 
or  four  servants,  to  Gowrie  House  early  in  the  day,  when  the  people 
were  in  church.  His  seclusion  and  capture  would  not  then  be  very 
difficult    if   Cowrie's   retainers    preferred  the    Earl    to    their    king. 


464  RESTALRIG. 

James  heard  of  an  English  ship  that  hung  off  the  coast,  not  com- 
municating with  the  land,  but  intending,  the  king  thought,  to  aid 
Gowrie.  He  spoke  of  this  to  Nicholson  (September  3).^^  Con- 
jecture is  vain,  but  the  author's  suspicions  point  towards  Roger 
Aston  (who  drops  out  of  the  correspondence  for  a  year),  and  to  Sir 
John  Guevara,  Willoughby's  cousin  at  Berwick,  the  kidnapper  of 
Ashfield,  as  allies  of  Gowrie.  The  link  between  Guevara  and 
Gowrie  may  have  been  that  genial  traitor,  burglar,  and  pirate, 
Logan  of  Restalrig,  whose  impregnable  keep,  Fastcastle,  is  perched 
on  a  perpendicular  sea-cliff  between  Berwick  and  Dirleton,  On 
this  point  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  new  disclosures  to  be 
found  in  Appendix  B.  The  subject  is  too  complex  for  dis- 
cussion here,  and  we  conclude  that  the  theory  of  an  accidental 
brawl  is  untenable  (for  James  was  locked  in,  and  Gowrie  de- 
liberately lied  as  to  his  departure),  while  James  could  not  have 
arranged  for  Gowrie  to  lie  and  so  bring  his  retinue  to  the  place 
where  his  cries  for  aid  were  heard.  Accident  is  impossible  ;  a  plot 
by  James  is  impossible ;  and  we  conclude  that  two  very  young  men 
devised  a  scheme  on  romantic  lines,  but  blundered  over  the 
enterprise.  This  is  made  more  probable  by  the  extraordinary  tissue 
of  falsehoods  contained  in  the  hitherto  unknown  Vindication  of  the 
Ruthvens  in  MS.  It  is  throughout  impudently  mendacious,  but 
was  all  the  case  that  its  author  could  offer  to  Cecil  through  Carey. 

Now  began  the  trouble  with  the  Edinburgh  preachers,  especially 
Mr  Robert  Bruce.  The  arguments  of  James  with  these  men,  and 
Bruce's  replies,  fill  many  pages  of  the  friendly  Calderwood.  The 
other  preachers  were  suspended.  Bruce  was  banished  at  the  end 
of  October.  It  is  curious  that  he  passed  a  night  or  two  at  Restal- 
rig, Logan's  house,  before  he  set  sail.  "  Mr  Robert  returned  to 
Restalrig  upon  Thursday,  at  night,  the  penult  of  October,"  says 
Calderwood.  Mr  Robert  was  in  very  bad  company,  if  Logan 
(accused  of  being  in  the  plot)  was  at  home. 

Another  kind  of  suspiciousness  was  rife ;  England  was  thought  to 
have  been  Cowrie's  ally,  and  the  tone  of  Elizabeth,  in  her  con- 
gratulatory letter  to  James  on  his  escape,  is  extremely  tart.  (August 
21.)  She  says  that  she  hears  "her  funerals  have  been  prepared." 
"  Think  not  but  how  wilily  soever  things  be  carried,  they  are  so 
well  known  that  they  may  do  more  harm  to  others  than  to  me.  .  .  . 
The  memory  of  a  prince's  end  "  (that  is,  apparently,  reflection  on 
James's  narrow  escape)  "  made  me  call  to  mind  such  usage,  which. 


AFFAIRS   OF   THE   KIRK.  465 

too  many  courtiers  talk  of,  and  I  cannot  stop  my  ears  from  ..." 
She  also  spoke  of  a  rumour  that  James  meant  to  hand  Prince 
Henry  over  to  Catholic  teachers.  James  warmly  denied  these 
imputations  which  hint  at  a  plot  of  his  own  against  Elizabeth's  life. 
She  had  never  satisfied  him  about  Valentine  Thomas,  and  probably 
suspected  him  of  dealings  with  Essex,  whose  enterprise  had  brought 
him  to  the  Tower. ^^  Elizabeth  softened  her  expressions,  but  the 
mist  of  suspicions  grew,  and  we  find  Bothwell's  old  ally,  Locke, 
writing  to  Cecil  about  "  a  party "  whom  Cecil  has  conferred  with, 
and  who  is  to  do  something  secret,  and  be  rewarded  after  perform- 
ance.    He  was  Ogilvie  of  Pourie.'^*^ 

James  and  his  queen  were  at  odds  about  the  Cowries.  Nichol- 
son's gossip  on  the  topic  need  not  be  accepted,  though  it  blew 
widely  abroad,  and,  if  accepted,  it  proves  nothing.  The  queen  was 
fond  of  Beatrix  Ruthven,  and,  womanlike,  believed  what  she  chose 
to  believe. 

Bishops  were  introduced  and  voted  at  the  November  Parliament 
which  forfeited  the  Ruthvens ;  they  were  Lindsay,  Gledstanes, 
Douglas,  and  Blackburn.'*^  The  stubborn  incredulity  of  the 
preachers  as  to  the  Cowrie  conspiracy,  and  their  natural  reluctance 
to  preach  on  a  given  subject  and  to  a  given  effect,  had  lent  James 
his  opportunity.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  ministers,  to  yield 
here  was  to  yield  all.  "  The  Spreit  of  God  "  inspired  them  with 
what  they  were  to  utter  in  their  sermons.  Now,  if  their  minds  were 
not  absolutely  convinced  of  the  Cowrie  treason,  the  Spirit,  of  course, 
would  not  permit  them  to  denounce  it.  We  really  cannot  blame 
them  here,  for  the  innocent  heirs  of  Cowrie  had  not  yet  (before 
December  15)  been  forfeited.  Thus,  as  we  look  at  things,  James 
was  actually  commanding  the  preachers  to  go  into  their  pulpits  and 
be  guilty  of  contempt  of  court.  To  his  mind,  however,  and  he  was 
not  wrong,  the  preachers  were  throwing  doubt  on  his  personal  word 
of  honour.  They  would  not  believe  that  things  had  passed  as  he 
said,  and  swore  that  they  did  pass,  and  (Henderson  apart)  the 
king's,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  was  the  only  evidence.  Thus 
James  fought  for  his  royal  and  personal  honour — if  he  was  a  liar  he 
was  also  a  murderer — while  the  preachers  fought  for  their  consciences 
and  their  inspiration. 

On  October  14,  at  Holyrood,  there  was  a  meeting  of  the  fourteen 
Royal  Commissioners  of  the  General  Assembly  with  the  Privy 
Council  at  Holyrood.     James  had  ousted  five  Edinburgh  preachers, 

VOL.   II.  2  G 


466  POSITION    OF   THE   PREACHERS. 

and  their  places  had  to  be  filled  up.  He  sent  James  Melville  and 
two  others  of  the  Commissioners  to  consult  on  a  delicate  point  with 
the  "  outed  "  preachers,  and,  in  the  absence  of  the  three,  got  the 
remaining  divines  in  to  nominate  three  of  the  bishops  already 
mentioned.  Their  sees  were  Aberdeen,  Ross,  and  Caithness,  be- 
cause in  these  sees  alone  could  a  handful  of  the  temporal  wealth  of 
the  old  Church  be  recovered.*^  The  king,  however,  had  not  yet 
wedged  "  the  horns  of  the  mitre  "  securely  into  the  fabric  of  the 
Kirk,  and  the  situation  of  his  three  new  bishops  contained  the  seeds 
of  long  wars  that  were  to  be.  It  might  be  disputed  whether  the 
Commissioners  who  accepted  the  bishops  had  power  to  act  for  the 
Kirk  ;  their  concession  needed  ratification  by  a  General  Assembly. 
Mr  Gardiner  looks  on  the  bishops  as  holding  rank  derived  only  by 
a  civil  appointment  from  the  Crown,  by  prerogative  and  Act  of 
Parliament.  They  were  inevitably  led  to  interfere  with  the  affairs 
of  the  Kirk,  which  this  odd  kind  of  bishops, had  no  legal  right  to 
do,  being  hampered  by  "caveats."  They  would  be  opposed  by  the 
preachers  "  whose  cause  was  the  true  cause  of  all  spiritual  and 
moral  progress  in  Scotland,  who  in  the  highest  sense  were  in  the 
right,  even  when  they  were  formally  in  the  wrong."  This  is  the 
usual  judgment  of  historians.  The  precise  ministers  represented 
"progress  spiritual  and  moral."  Unlike  the  king,  nobles,  and 
bishops,  the  preachers  did  not  follow  "  the  uncertain  guide  of 
temporary  expediency."  ^^ 

We  are  compelled  to  see  matters  in  a  different  light.  The 
preachers  who  sympathised  with  the  anarchism  of  Bothwell,  or 
sheltered  with  Logan  of  Restalrig,**  or  approved  of  raids  upon  the 
royal  person,  followed  expediency  just  as  other  politicians  did. 
They  were  often  the  agents,  sometimes  the  spies,  of  a  foreign  and 
unfriendly  country — England.  They  were  less  often  formally  in 
the  wrong  than  the  king  was.  They  were  highly  moral  men, 
despite  their  festive  free  lances  like  Bothwell  and  Logan.  But 
their  morals  did  not  prevent  Bruce  from  calling  for  the  death  of 
Henderson  merely  as  an  experiment  in  evidence.  Two  despotisms, 
two  claims  to  absolute  power,  were  in  conflict, — the  claim  of  inspired 
prophets,  the  claims  of  an  anointed  king.  "  Progress  "  was  equally 
impossible  under  either  claim.  The  two  irreconcilable  forces,  each 
of  them  incompatible  with  the  freedom  of  the  State  and  of  the 
individual,  were  obliged  to  destroy  each  other.  Meanwhile  James 
had  bishops  voting  in  Parliament.       But  the  impossibility  of  en- 


SCOTLAND   STILL   ANARCHIC.  467 

dowing  the  sees,  and  the  attempts  of  the  Crown  to  do  so  out  of  the 
alienated  Church  lands,  combined  with  the  horror  of  anything  that 
looked  like  the  services  of  the  old  faith,  were  to  produce  the  Civil 
War. 

During  the  stress  of  these  affairs  Charles  I.  was  born  at  Falkland, 
on  November  ig.  His  mother  had  just  passed  through  agitations 
only  second  to  those  of  Mary  before  the  birth  of  James  VI.  An 
old  anecdote  avers  that  the  child's  nurse  once  found  a  spectral 
cloaked  man  rocking  the  cradle  :  this,  of  course,  was  the  enemy  of 
mankind,  and  James  drew  the  darkest  omens  from  the  phenomenon. 

The  year  1600  ended,  leaving  James  "a  free  king"  as  regarded 
the  resistance  of  the  Kirk,  but  still  plagued  by  deadly  feuds  among 
the  nobles.  Huntly  and  Argyll  were  not  yet  reconciled  ;  the  Maxwells 
and  Johnstones,  the  Ogilvies  and  Lindsays,  the  Clan  Gregor  and 
the  rest  of  the  world  carried  on  their  ancient  vendettas,  and  in 
Ayrshire  began  the  series  of  crimes  connected  with  Mure  of 
Auchendrane.      Scotland  was  still  anarchic* 

*  Persons  curious  as  to  the  Gowrie  conspiracy  will  find  the  case  against  the 
king  stated  in  Mr  Louis  Barbe's  interesting  volume,  "The  Tragedy  of  Gowrie 
House"  (Gardiner,  Paisley,  1S87).  The  author  has  considered  Mr  Barbe's  argu- 
ments carefully,  but  remains  of  the  opinion  that  the  plot  was  a  Ruthven,  not  a 
royal  conspiracy.  He  has  made  a  full  study  of  the  case,  and  of  the  fresh  manu- 
script materials  in  "James  VI.  and  the  Gowrie  Mystery"  (Longmans,  1902). 


In  writing  this  and  the  preceding  chapter,  I  had  not  before  me  Major  Martin 
Hume's  interesting  "Treason  and  Plot,"  based  partly  on  uncalendared  papers  at 
Hatfield.  Major  Hume  thinks  that  James  at  this  period  was  deep  in  plot  with 
Rome  and  Spain.  He  speaks  of  "  the  many  letters  now  before  us  in  which  James 
does  pretend  his  desire  for  reconciliation  with  Rome  "  (p.  419,  note  i.  p.  420). 
I  have  no  knowledge  of  any  such  letters  later  than  the  one  of  1584.  From  the 
Pope's  answer  to  the  disputed  letter  sent  by  Elphinstone  in  1598,  it  is  clear  that 
James,  if  he  wrote  this  epistle,  made  no  pretension  of  a  desire  to  change  his  creed — 
his  Holiness  regrets  the  circumstance.  "Lord  Hume  was  sent  to  Paris  and  to 
Italy  ...  to  beg  for  recognition"  (May  1599),  says  Major  Hume  (p.  380).  Lord 
Hume  went  to  Paris  and  to  Brussels  to  meet  Bothwell — much  to  James's  annoy- 
ance— to  Italy  he  did  not  go.  The  "advertisements"  of  John  Colville,  a  starving 
spy  in  exile  (1599),  are  "sensational"  rumours  not  worthy  of  consideration.  His 
myths  are  recorded  by  Major  Hume  (p.  380),  and  long  ago  by  Tytler  (ix.  313,  314). 
If  the  wild  tales  were  true,  James  rejected  the  Papal  offers  of  100,000  crowns  down, 
and  2,000,000  to  follow  !  That  James  had  received  abundance  of  Spanish  or 
Roman  gold  is  impossible.  We  know,  from  Nicholson,  and  from  the  reports  of 
the  financial  Convention  of  June  29,  1600,  that  he  was  desperately  needy.  Com- 
pare Major  Hume,  "the  encouragement  and  money  he  was  getting  from  the 
Catholic  powers  ..."  (p.  395).     It  was  Colville's  business  to  send  in  what  is  now 


468  NOTES. 

called  "scare  news,"  and  he  did  so,  but  was  so  easily  detected  by  his  English 
employers  that  he  turned  Catholic  "for  a  morsel  of  bread."  For  these  and  other 
reasons,  I  must  venture  to  dissent  from  the  conclusions  of  Major  Hume,  till 
evidence  of  a  more  satisfactory  sort  is  produced.  At  most,  I  think,  James  wished 
to  pose  as  a  tolerant  prince,  despite  his  persecution  of  his  Catholic  subjects. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    XVII. 


^  Nicholson  to  Robert  Cecil,  January  12,  1600;  Thorpe,  ii.  780. 
2  Reprinted  by  Mr  T.    G.    Law,  Miscellany  of  the  Scottish  History  Society, 
vol.  i. 

^  Pitcaim,  ii.  330. 

*  State  Papers  Scotland,  MS.  Elizabeth,  vol.  Ixvi.,  No.  52. 
^  Thorpe,  ii.  762. 
^  Hatfield  Calendar. 

'  Winwood  Memorials,  pp.  37,  146  ;    Border  Calendar,  ii.  645.     For  Bruce's 
mission   to  a   person  whom   in   1624  he  calls   "The   Master  of  Cowrie,"  see 
Wodrow's  "  Life  of  Bruce,"  p.  10,  1842. 
^  Winwood  Memorials,  p.  156. 
9  Thorpe,  ii.  782. 

1"  Nicholson  to  Robert  Cecil,  April  20,  1600. 
"  Thorpe,  ii.  7S2,  783. 
^^  Arnot's  "  Criminal  Trials,"  p.  373. 
^^  Border  Calendar,  ii.  659. 
1*  Thorpe,  ii.  782. 
15  Thorpe,  ii.  783. 

1^  Colville's  life  is  traced  in  the  preface  to  "Letters  of  John  Colville,"  Banna- 
tyne  Club. 

^''  Hatfield  Calendar,  viii.  147. 
^*  Hatfield  Calendar,  viii.  399. 

^®  This  appears  to  be  the  sense  of  Craigingelt's  statement  in  Pitcaim,  ii.  157. 
-"  State  Papers,  Scotland,  Eliz. ,  vol.  Ixvi. ,  No.  50,  published  for  the  Roxburghe 
Club  in  "Cowrie  Conspiracy,  Confessions  of  George  Sprot"  by  myself, 
^  Pitcaim,  ii.  157. 
^  Border  Calendar,  ii.  677. 

^  Evidence  of  Henry  Balnaves  :  "  Was  in  the  lodging  before  the  tumult.     Past 
forth,   at   the  request  of  Sir  Thomas  Erskine,  to  buy  him  a  pair  green   silken 
shanks." — Pitcaim,  ii.  199. 
^  Pitcaim,  ii.  249. 
2*  Pitcairn,  ii.  156. 
^  Pitcaim,  ii.  173. 

^  Spottiswoode  gives  this  version,  as  does  :   "The  True  Discourse  of  the  Late 
Treason,"  State  Papers,  Scotland,  Eliz.  vol.  Ivi.  No.  50,  MS. 
28  Act  Pari.  Scot.,  iv.  83,  84. 
^  Calderwood,  vi.  73,  74. 
*"  Privy  Council  Register,  vi.  149,  150. 


NOTES.  469 

2^  Pitcairn,  ii.  250,  251. 
^  Pitcairn,  ii.  215,  222. 
2^  Pitcairn,  ii.  218. 
^*  Pitcairn,  ii.  1 74- 179. 

^  State  Papers  Scot.,  Eliz.,  MS.  vol,  Ixvi.,  No.  78. 
3S  S.  P.  Scot.,  Eliz.,  MS.  vol.  Ixvi.,  No.  107. 
2''  Privy  Council  Register,  1600,  1608,  1609,  s.'f.  Robert  Oliphant. 
^  S.  P.  Scot.,  MS.  vol.  Ixvi.,  No.  66. 

^^  Tytler,  ix.  365,  367  ;  Letters  of  Elizabeth  and  James  (1849),  pp.  132,  133. 
•'o  Thorpe,  ii.  788  (83). 
^'  Calderwood,  vi.  99,  100. 

•*-  James  Melville,  p.  489  ;  Register  Privy  Council,  vi.  164,  166,  and  Note. 
"^  Gardiner,  i.  522,  523. 

**  Had  Bruce  stayed  not  in  Logan's  house,   but  in  the  village  of  Restalrig, 
Calderwood  would  probably  have  written  "  Restalrig  toun." 


470 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

JAMES    SUCCEEDS    TO    ELIZABETH. 
160I  — 1610. 

The  new  year  (1601)  was  marked  by  the  despatch  of  ambassadors 
to  sound  England  and  Elizabeth,  and  by  almost  unusually  dark  and 
hostile  intrigues  of  Cecil.  Before  the  end  of  the  year,  however,  he 
had  abandoned  these  efforts  in  favour  of  a  secret  understanding 
with  James.  The  court  was  rife  with  quarrels  and  intrigues,  and 
James  Melville  kept  alive  the  "  griefs "  of  the  Kirk,  with  the 
vehemence  of  his  brother,  while  the  king  summoned  the  General 
Assembly  in  secular  fashion  by  proclamations  at  market  crosses. 
The  ambassadors  who  set  out  for  London  in  February  1601  were  the 
Earl  of  Mar  and  the  lay  Abbot  of  Kinloss.  They  left  Scotland  in 
the  middle  of  February,  and  made  their  way  to  town  at  the  pace 
of  a  funeral  procession.  In  a  sense  it  taas  a  funeral  procession. 
Essex  lay  in  prison  for  his  famed  "one  day's  rebellion,"  an  attempt, 
in  the  Scottish  manner,  at  a  raid  on  the  person  of  Elizabeth. 
Essex,  before  he  was  taken,  managed  to  burn  most  of  his  papers, 
especially  one  which  he  wore  in  a  bag  about  his  neck,  and  which 
only  contained  six  or  seven  lines.  Now,  about  Yuletide  1600, 
Essex,  Southampton  and  others  had  attempted  to  establish  a 
cryptic  correspondence  with  James.  They  worked  through  Norton, 
the  publisher,  whose  office  was  in  St.  Paul's  Churchyard,  but  who 
had  a  branch  establishment  in  Edinburgh.  He  carried  Essex's 
document,  recommending  that  Mar  should  be  sent  as  ambassador 
to  London  by  February  i,  1601.  James  was  to  reply  by  a  letter 
"  in  disguised  words  of  three  books,"  whether  a  book  cypher,  or  by 
using  book-titles  as  cant  names  of  the  plotters.  James's  answer 
may  have  been  the  tiny  paper  which  Essex  wore  in   a  bag,  and 


JAMES   AND   ESSEX   (160O-1601).  4/1 

burned  when  his  enterprise  failed.  Essex  was  searched,  naked,  for 
this  bag  on  February  18,  1601,  but  he  had  destroyed  it.^  Essex 
had  even  prepared  instructions  for  Mar  on  his  arrival  as  ambassador. 
Their  general  purport  was  to  warn  him  that  Cecil  would  thwart 
James's  succession  in  favour  of  the  Infanta  of  Spain.  This  was  a 
wild  theory,  but  Essex  added,  with  truth,  that  Cecil  had  done  James 
many  ill  offices.  That  was  well  known  to  the  king,  who  told  his 
two  ambassadors  that  Cecil  and  the  English  ministry  would  certainly 
refuse  all  their  requests,  "  to  force  me  to  appear  in  my  true  colours, 
as  they  call  it."  -  Essex's  instructions  for  Mar  were  revealed  by  his 
secretary,  Cuffe,  to  Cecil,  and  were  not  likely  to  secure  a  gracious 
welcome  for  Mar  and  Kinloss.^ 

Earlier  dealings  between  Essex  and  James,  the  request  that 
James  would  make  a  military  demonstration  on  the  border,  James's 
ambiguous  reply,  were  known  to  Elizabeth.  The  king,  in  February 
1 60 1,  was  bidding  his  ambassadors  ask  her  for  a  plain  statement, 
engrossed  in  the  national  records,  that  he  had  never  conspired 
against  her.  This  he  demanded  as  a  check  to  any  effort  to  defraud 
him  of  the  succession  on  the  score  of  such  attempts.  But 
Elizabeth,  as  if  he  referred  only  to  the  affair  of  Valentine  Thomas's 
charges,  declined  to  revive  old  scandals  by  meeting  James's 
wishes. 

While  Essex,  after  these  attempts  at  intrigue  with  James,  lay  in 
prison,  expecting  death,  it  was  inconvenient  that  Mar  and  Kinloss 
should  arrive  in  London.  They  therefore  delayed,  and  came  after 
his  execution.  The  king  commanded  them  to  study  the  situation 
between  Elizabeth  and  her  people,  to  find  out  whether  they  were 
dissatisfied  with  her  personally,  or  with  her  ministers  only,  to  urge 
his  claims,  not  merely  to  the  crown,  but  to  the  ^  ennox  estates  in 
England,  to  ask  for  money,  to  try  to  secure  the  interest  of  the  city, 
of  the  Lieutenant  of  the  Tower,  and  of  the  fleet.  They  were 
plainly  to  warn  Cecil  and  his  followers  that  James,  when  king, 
would  use  them  as  they  should  now  use  him.  It  is  not  certain 
whether  Mar  and  Kinloss  bluntly  told  Cecil  what  James  was 
threatening.  Cecil  himself  was,  in  fact,  working  against  James 
after  the  accustomed  Tudor  policy.  Since  Henry  VII.,  every 
English  king  had  sent  his  agents  to  spy,  to  disturb,  to  enlist  rebels 
and  traitors,  to  encourage  the  discontents  of  the  godly,  and  the 
enterprises  of  the  nobles,  north  of  Tweed.  In  1601  Cecil  was 
playing  the  old  game.    He  was  employing  Ogilvie  of  Pourie,  James's 


472  CECIL   INTRIGUES   WITH   JAMES. 

self-styled  envoy  to  the  Catholic  powers,  and  a  new  spy,  Thomas 
Douglas,  as  thorns  in  the  side  of  the  king.  Ralph  Gray,  residing 
at  Chillingham,  not  far  from  Flodden,  and  the  Master  of  Gray  him- 
self,— (he  had  returned  from  France  just  after  the  Gowrie  affair), — 
harbouring  at  Chillingham,  were  also  Cecil's  agents  in  mi~chief. 
"  Lord  Willoughby  "  (at  Berwick)  "  has  many  errands  in  Scotland  "  ; 
he  had  repudiated  any  share  in  the  Gowrie  conspiracy,  in  fact,  he 
was  not  at  Berwick  when  that  affair  occurred.*  Cecil  was  also 
engaged  in  a  very  obscure  intrigue  with  a  Scot  named  Francis 
Mowbray,  who,  in  January  1603,  died  of  hurts  received  in  an 
attempt  to  escape  from  Edinburgh  Castle,  where  he  lay  on  a  charge 
of  conspiring  against  James's  life.  In  1602  Cecil  seems  to  have 
been  treating  with  this  Mowbray  for  the  purpose  of  fully  discovering 
his  plot,  and  communicating  it  to  James.*  But,  in  the  spring  of 
1 60 1,  Cecil's  dealings  with  Mowbray  are  dark.^ 

Whether  Mar  and  Kinloss  plainly  delivered  James's  threat  to  the 
English  intriguer  or  not,  Cecil  came  to  terms  with  them.  They  met 
in  the  office  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  in  the  Strand.  It  was 
arranged  that  James  should  not  publicly  pester  Elizabeth  with  his 
claims,  and  that  Cecil's  commerce  with  James  should  be  kept  a 
secret.  Lord  Henry  Howard  was  to  write  to  Kinloss  for  Cecil,  and 
he  acted  as  an  intermediary  so  verbose,  and,  in  addressing  James, 
so  crawlingly  abject  and  hyperbolically  fulsome,  that  his  secret 
correspondence  is  most  distasteful  reading.  The  rudeness  of  the 
preachers  is  not  so  repulsive  as  the  exaggerated  and  slavish  oriental 
flattery  of  the  peers  and  divines  of  England,  with  whom  James 
henceforth  had  to  do.  In  the  preface  to  our  Bibles  we  have  a  fair 
or  rather  a  moderate  specimen  of  the  style  which  was  to  confirm 
James  in  his  fatal  theory  of  prerogative  and  Divine  right. 
Language  heightened  by  an  age  of  servility  to  Gloriana,  was  yet 
higher  spiced  for  the  unaccustomed  but  greedy  ears  of  the  king  of 
Scotland,  in  the  secret  despatches  which  Howard  wrote  for  Cecil. 
"The  correspondence,"  says  Mr  Bruce,  the  editor  of  the  letters  not 
already  published  by  Lord  Hailes  in  1766,  "began  between  March 
and  June  1601."  The  later  date  is  the  more  probable.  Mr 
Bruce,  an  opponent  of  James,  admits  that  Cecil  had  other  strings  to 

*  The  execution  of  an  auctioneer  for  hanging  up  the  king's  portrait  on  the  gibbet 
seems  cruel  (Nicholson  to  Cecil,  April  26,  1601).  But  the  man  obviously  meant 
to  taunt  James  as  the  murderer  of  Gowrie.  He  "  is  to  be  challenged  for  the  filthy 
act"  (May  20,  Thomas  Douglas  to  Cecil). 


THE   HOLIDAY   OF   AUGUST    5.  473 

his  bow  (the  Master  of  Gray  for  one),  and  "  occasionally  found  it 
difficult  to  repress  the  disposition  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure," 
on  the  side  of  James. 

In  his  first  letter  to  Cecil  James  denied  that  he  had  ever  been  in 
treasonable  relations  with  Essex,  and  promised  to  keep  Elizabeth's 
minister  on  in  his  old  situation.  He  keeps  addressing  Cecil  as 
"My  dearest  10"  (the  cypher  name),  and,  after  October  1601, 
James  was  fairly  safe  from  the  chance  of  finding  Bothwell  in  his 
bedroom  or  Restalrig  under  his  bed,  at  least  as  far  as  Cecil  could 
control  and  direct  such  enthusiasts.  His  domestic  peace  was  less 
secure.  His  queen  was  still  sore  about  the  deaths  of  the  Ruthvens, 
and  the  dismissal  of  Mistress  Beatrix.  Howard  and  Cecil  especially 
distrusted  Anne,  James's  wife ;  they  must  never  be  well  spoken  of, 
they  said,  in  her  presence.  She  passed  the  year,  as  she  usually  did, 
in  quarrels  with  James's  ministers  and  favourites,  such  as  Sir  George 
Home  and  Sir  Thomas  Erskine.  Whatever  her  husband  did  was 
wrong,  apparently,  in  this  lady's  opinion,  and  so  Howard  and  Cecil 
had  reasons  for  distrusting  her.  The  political  year  ended  with 
James's  offers  to  aid  Elizabeth  in  Ireland.  From  the  intrigues  of 
Cecil,  now  rallying  to  the  Rising  Sun,  he  was  safe.  Ogilvie  of 
Pourie,  too,  gave  trouble,  trying  to  extort  blackmail  from  the 
king,  probably,  but  he  was  reduced  to  denying  that  ever  he 
was  commissioned  to  do  James's  errands  of  secrecy  in  Flanders, 
France,  and  Spain — a  pretence  which,  as  we  saw,  caused  great 
scandal.^ 

In  ecclesiastical  matters  the  year  was  comparatively  peaceful. 
James  Melville  was  in  bad  health,  and  could  only  send  letters  to 
the  brethren,  while  Davidson,  who  also  expressed  himself  in  a  letter, 
was  at  first  "  warded,"  but,  later,  set  at  liberty.  A  General  Assembly, 
at  Burntisland  in  May,  did  little  beyond  deciding  that  the  country 
was  about  to  run  either  into  papistrie  or  atheism,  considerable 
defections  from  the  standards  of  the  Kirk.  It  was  decided  that  the 
converted  Catholic  peers  ought  to  be  more  visited  by  ministers,  and 
that  the  "  planting  "  of  preachers  in  desolate  parishes  was  desirable. 
The  Edinburgh  preachers  who  had  doubted  James's  account  of  the 
Cowrie  plot  were  to  be  transported  to  other  districts.  It  was  a 
grievance  that  James  made  August  5,  the  day  of  his  deliverance 
from  the  Gowries,  a  holiday  with  preachings.  He  took  this  festival 
to  England  with  him,  and  some  of  the  sermons  which  the  English 
prelates    preached  on  Gowrie   Plot  day  are  remarkably   false  and 


474  TROUBLE   WITH    MR    BRUCE    (1602). 

fulsome.  A  Scottish  preacher  named  Blythe  emitted  a  sermon  against 
pardon  granted  by  James  for  manslayings,  "and  worse."  "Worse" 
was  a  supposed  pardon  to  Ogilvie  of  Pourie,  who,  after  being 
captured  on  the  English  border,  had  come  north,  partly  to  do  what 
he  could  for  himself  with  James,  partly  in  the  service  of  Cecil. 

In  the  spring  of  1602  that  resolute  disbeliever  in  the  king's 
word,  Robert  Bruce,  who  had  an  interview  with  Mar  and  Kinloss 
in  England  during  their  embassy,  was  allowed  to  come  home,  and 
met  the  king.  A  kind  of  "  dour "  tactlessness  was  displayed  by 
Bruce.  The  king  asked  him  if  he  was  "  resolved," — that  is,  if  his 
doubts  as  to  the  Cowrie  matter  were  removed.  Bruce  said  "  Yes." 
"  How  ?  "  asked  the  king.  Bruce  said  by  Mar's  oath.  Now  James, 
in  earlier  interviews,  had  given  Bruce  both  word  and  oath,  perhaps 
too  many  oaths.  The  man,  therefore,  was  calmly  telling  James 
that  he  accepted  Mar's  oath,  but  not  the  king's.  James  observed 
that  Mar  neither  heard  nor  saw  anything  of  the  chief  events. 
"  How  then  could  he  swear  ?  "  Mr  Bruce  did  not  know.  He  was  still 
unsatisfied  about  the  real  matter  at  issue,  "  the  part  which  concerned 
your  majesty  and  the  Master  of  Cowrie,"  young  Ruthven.  "  Doubt 
you  of  that  ?  "  said  the  king,  "  then  you  could  not  but  count  me  a 
murderer?"  Bruce's  answer  was  amazing.  "It  foUoweth  not,  if  it 
please  you,  sir,  for  you  might  have  some  secret  cause." 

That  "secret  cause"  could  only  be  what  rumour  averred,  an 
amour  between  young  Ruthven,  or  Cowrie,  and  the  queen.  To 
have  Ruthven  stabbed  in  his  brother's  house  for  that  or  any  other 
secret  cause  would  have  been  murder,  as  James  had  said.  Mr 
Bruce's  morality  was  as  peculiar  as  his  manners.  "The  king 
heard  him  gently  .  .  .  which  Mr  Robert  admired."  He  might 
well  "  admire,"  as,  but  for  Mr  Bruce's  cloth,  any  man  would  have 
been  justified  in  kicking  him  downstairs.  He  would  sign  a  pro- 
fession of  belief,  but  would  not  utter  it  in  the  pulpit,  because  it  was 
"a  doubtsome  matter."  "I  give  it  a  doubtsome  trust."  This  odd 
moralist  would  sign  an  expression  of  belief  in  what  he  did  not 
believe.  Mr  Bruce  was  internally  praying  all  the  time,  which 
exercise  appears  to  have  confused  his  mind.''  But  Mr  Bruce  was  at 
last  convinced,  as  we  have  already  said,  that  James  was  guiltless  of 
any  plot  when  he  left  Falkland  on  the  morning  of  August  5,  1600. 
It  is  not  an  enemy  who  reports  these  things,  but  the  sympathetic 
Calderwood.  He  later  offered  to  be  plain  in  the  pulpit  "  as  I  shall 
find  myself  to  be  moved  by  Cod's  Spirit " — the  old  intolerable  pre- 


BETTER   RELATIONS   WITH    ENGLAND.  475 

tence  of  direct  inspiration.  At  the  risk  of  tedious  repetition  it  must 
again  be  said  that  this  claim  of  direct,  not  to  say  miraculous 
illumination  by  the  Deity  was  the  real  stone  of  stumbling  on  which 
the  Kirk  tripped.  In  Covenanting  days,  nearly  a  century  later,  a 
certain  Euphan  M'Cullan,  of  Kilconquhar,  in  Fife,  was  fervent  in 
prayer.  She  prayed  for  the  life  of  a  preacher  named  Carmichael 
who  was  in  bad  health.  "  The  Lord  left  me  not  a  mouse's  likeness, 
and  said,  '  Beast  that  thou  art  .  .  .  he ' "  (Mr  Carmichael)  "  '  was 
but  a  reed  that  I  spoke  through,  and  I  will  provide  another  reed  to 
speak  through.' "  Mr  Henry  Rollock  was  provided,  but,  Euphan 
thought,  was  an  inferior  reed.  Her  words  are  cited  from  "  The 
Memorials  of  Mr  John  Livingstone  "  by  Lord  Hailes.^  Not  only 
preachers,  but  prayerful  men  were  apt  to  be  directly  inspired  by 
God,  as  some  of  the  slayers  of  Archbishop  Sharp  were,  according 
to  their  own  account.  There  is  no  way  of  dealing  with  men  like 
Bruce  and  all  who  held  his  views.  He  might  have  said  frankly,  "I 
cannot  subscribe,  as  a  man  of  veracity,  a  statement  in  which  I  do 
not  believe."  But  he  was  ready  to  sign.  In  the  pulpit  it  was 
otherwise,  there  he  was  "  a  reed  "  breathed  through  by  Omnipotence. 
He  did  sign  his  resolution,  not  as  convinced,  but  as  following  the 
law,  "  till  God  gave  him  further  light."  In  July  Andrew  Melville 
was  "gated"  for  a  short  time  within  his  own  college. 

The  new  year,  1602,  opened  prosperously,  with  a  victory  of 
Elizabeth's  forces,  in  Ireland,  over  Tyrone,  "  forced  to  retire  to  the 
•woods,  and  play  Robin  Hood  there,"  wrote  Nicholson.  Ker  of 
Cessford  was  raised  to  the  peerage  as  Roxburghe,  and  strict 
-measures  were  taken  in  his  border  region  against  Grahams, 
Armstrongs,  and  other  moss-troopers.  The  Master  of  Gray  was 
received  into  favour,  probably  because,  as  a  kinsman  of  the 
Ruthvens,  he  had  mollified  the  queen's  anger  about  their  fall,  and 
reconciled  her  to  Sir  Thomas  Erskine,  Sir  George  Hume,  and  other 
courtiers.  James  pacified  the  ancient  feuds  of  Moray,  Huntly,  and 
Argyll.^  He  communicated  to  Elizabeth  certain  overtures  from 
France,  and  removed  her  suspicions  (July).  "She  thinks  that 
King  James  will  have  none  of  any  league  if  she  be  not  one  in  it."  ^'^ 

The  General  Assembly  met  at  Holyrood,  in  November — though 
it  had  been,  in  the  last  meeting,  appointed  for  July,  at  St  Andrews. 
The  king's  preacher,  Patrick  Galloway  (he  who  induced  Henderson 
to  confess  about  his  doings  in  Gowrie  House),  was  appointed 
Moderator.     James   IMelville    gave   in  a   protest   against  the   post- 


476  MORE   OF    MR   BRUCE. 

ponement  of  the  Assembly  and  the  meeting  in  Holyrood  Palace. 
Whatsoever  should  be  done  contrary  to  the  constitutions  of  the 
Kirk  would  be  null,  he  said,  and  of  no  effect.  The  preachers  who 
had  visited  the  converted  earls,  found  that  only  Errol  was  at  all 
satisfactory.  Huntly  could  not  go  to  his  parish  kirk,  the  parishioners 
were  such  mean  men  !  This  denoted  a  lack  of  enthusiasm.  Angus 
could  not  be  got  at,  but  was  reported  to  entertain  professed  enemies 
to  religion.  The  faithful  of  Fife  complained  that  the  land  had  been 
"defiled"  by  the  saying  of  mass  for  the  French  ambassador.  The 
General  Assemblies,  too,  it  was  urged,  were  now  unconstitutionally 
kept.  They  were  told  that  the  law  of  1592,  as  to  keeping  of 
Assemblies,  had  been  duly  observed  ;  so  we  understand  the  reply. 
The  bishops  were  not  objected  to,  at  least  under  that  name,  but 
the  "  caveats "  had  not,  it  was  complained,  been  inspected  or 
discussed.  "  Let  the  '  caveats '  be  looked  to,"  was  the  answer. 
The  endless  affair  of  Mr  Robert  Bruce  came  up.  On  June  25  of 
this  year  (1602),  at  Perth,  he  had  signed  a  statement  of  his  belief 
in  James's  innocence  and  the  guilt  of  the  Ruthvens,  and  offered  to 
divert  "  as  far  as  lies  in  me,  the  people  from  their  lewd  opinion  and 
uncharitable  constructions.  .  .  ."  This  was  Bruce's  plain  duty, 
for  the  resolute  scepticism  of  so  notable  a  man  of  God  naturally 
confirmed  the  people  in  their  certainly  "lewd  opinion"  that  the 
king  was  a  deliberate  murderer,  liar,  and  robber.  The  Assembly 
was  asked, — If  Mr  Bruce  thinks  the  king  innocent,  and  is  ready,  as 
he  avers,  to  do  his  best  to  persuade  the  people  to  that  belief,  ought 
he  not  to  express  it  from  the  pulpit  ?  The  Assembly,  "  after  voting, 
thought  this  not  only  reasonable,  but  also  concluded  that  the  said 
Mr  Robert  ought  to  do  the  same." 

Mr  Robert  now — and  this  is  very  curious — retired,  of  all  places, 
to  Restalrig.  This  ought  to  answer  such  cavillers  as  John  Carey, 
who,  in  1598,  spoke  of  the  pious  Logan  of  Restalrig  as  "a  principal 
man  of  the  Papist  faction,"  merely  because  Logan  had  harboured 
George  Ker,  the  bearer  of  the  Spanish  blanks,  when  on  a  secret 
mission.  ^^  Mr  Bruce  was  apparently  a  friend  of  Logan  (under 
grave  but  then  unawakened  suspicion  as  to  the  plot),  to  whose  house 
of  Restalrig  (unless  we  are  to  suppose  that  "  Restalrig  toun "  is 
meant)  he  betook  himself  on  occasions  demanding  meditation  and 
prayer.  His  difficulty  now  was,  that  he  would  not  preach  in  favour 
of  James's  innocence  (though  he  said  that  he  believed  in  it)  "by 
injunctions."     So  the  endless  war  of  words  and  of  distinctions  as 


JAMES   KING   OF   ENGLAND   (1603).  477 

to  injunctions  went  on  ceaselessly.  We  cannot  pry  into  the  intricate 
delicacies  of  a  good  man's  conscience.  Mr  Bruce  thought  that 
James  yielded  to  passion  when  he  bade  Ramsay  to  strike  Ruthven. 
The  next  Assembly  was  fixed  for  July,  in  Aberdeen,  1604. 

On  January  5,  1603,  Elizabeth  wrote  her  last  letter  to  James, 
ending  "Your  loving  and  friendly  Sister."  In  March  her  health 
absolutely  broke  down.  The  horrors  of  her  latest  days  are  no  part 
of  our  subject.  She  died  at  Richmond  in  the  earliest  morning  of 
Thursday,  April  i,  and  by  Saturday  night  Robert  Carey  rode  into 
the  gates  of  Holyrood  with  the  news.  On  the  fourth  day  thereafter 
came  the  tidings  that  James  had  been  proclaimed  in  London. 

James  left  Edinburgh  on  April  5,  and,  after  a  festal  progress, 
with  stops  at  the  houses  of  the  nobles,  entered  London  on  May  6. 
After  hundreds  of  years  of  war  the  two  portions  of  the  island  were 
united  under  one  king.  It  is  natural  to  pause  for  a  moment,  and 
reflect  on  the  nature  and  fortunes  of  the  man  whom  events  had 
made  the  link  between  the  ancient  enemies.  James  is  a  personage 
so  grotesque,  in  many  of  his  habits  so  repulsive ;  so  treacherous,  so 
wedded  to  ideas  of  absolute  royal  power — based  on  a  reading  of 
Scripture  as  fallacious  as  that  of  his  great  adversaries,  the  preachers 
— that  we  are  apt  to  overlook  his  qualities.  Qualities  he  must  have 
possessed.  He  had  a  strong  sense  of  the  ludicrous.  Thrown  as  a 
yearling  child  into  the  perfidy  and  anarchy  of  Scotland,  his  person 
a  mere  symbol  of  authority,  like  the  great  seal,  at  which  any 
adventurer  might  clutch  ;  imperilled  by  the  plots  of  any  party  that 
was  backed  by  the  wealth  and  the  intrigues  of  England ;  James 
had,  in  some  way,  survived  every  peril,  and  had  floated  over  all  the 
billows  and  cross-tides  into  the  haven  of  the  English  monarchy. 
He  had  not  tact ;  he  had  often  endangered  his  claims  by  rudely  and 
inopportunely  pressing  them.  He  had  seldom  application  ;  most 
of  his  time  was  given  to  sport  and  to  study.  Of  economy  he  was 
ignorant  and  careless.  Yet  the  man  who,  while  he  rode  so  much, 
could  read  so  much,  who  while  apparently  always  in  the  saddle, 
had  learning  so  considerable,  must  have  possessed  a  certain  rapidity 
of  genius.  As  he  said  of  himself,  he  had  a  turn  of  speed. 
Though  devoted  to  favourites  he  could  recognise  loyalty,  as  in  Mar, 
whom  he  trusted,  he  said,  "  like  a  brother,"  and  he  could  defend 
Mar  resolutely  and  successfully  against  the  intrigues  of  the  queen, 
which  were  peculiarly  active  at  the  very  hour  of  the  departure  for 
England.     While  nothing  is  more  odious  in  James  than  his  accept- 


4/8  JAMES'S   RELIGION. 

ance  of  money  from  the  hands  or  the  slayer  of  his  mother,  yet, 
undoubtedly,  a  war  of  revenge  would  have  been  ruinous  to  Scotland, 
pernicious  to  England,  and  an  endless  cause  of  disunion. 

A  more  sympathetic  prince  would  have  taken  up  arms  ;  wisdom 
dictated  peace.  James,  fond  of  favourites  as  he  was,  continued  to  re- 
pose on  the  sagacity  of  Cecil,  despite  his  countless  personal  reasons  for 
hating  that  statesman.  Though  of  a  petulant  temper  he  was  capable 
of  self-restraint.  He  had  contrived  to  dominate  the  two  strongest 
opposing  currents,  the  lawlessness  of  the  nobles  and  the  pretensions 
of  the  preachers.  When  he  left  Scotland  there  was  no  noble  who 
dared  to  play  the  part  of  a  Murray,  a  I^Iorton,  or  of  either  Bothwell. 
He  had  reconciled  the  greater  feuds,  as  of  Argyll  .and  Huntly  ;  the 
smaller  feuds  and  private  wars  died  out  slowly  under  the  influence 
of  contact  with  England.  It  cannot  have  been  mere  luck  that 
brought  James  home  after  the  perils  of  nearly  forty  years.  His 
chief  danger  had  ever  been  the  Tudor  policy  of  maintaining 
divisions  and  anarchy  in  Scotland,  with  the  inevitable  result  of 
encouraging  the  tendency  to  turn  to  the  Catholic  powers  of  the  Con- 
tinent. From  these  perils  the  country  henceforth  was  free.  James's 
dim  trafifickings  with  Spain  and  the  Pope  had  always  been  reluctant ; 
they  were  forced  on  him  by  Elizabeth.  Often  warned  that  a  few 
thousand  pounds  would  make  Scotland  friendly  and  pacific,  Elizabeth 
had  preferred  the  dangers  and  ultimate  expenses  of  hostile  intrigue. 
This  policy  was  ended.  The  Borders,  that  focus  of  war,  ceased 
technically  to  be  the  Borders. 

On  the  question  of  religion  James  was  fated  to  sow  the  wind. 
His  own  private  opinion  is  given  in  one  of  his  secret  letters  to 
Cecil,  containing  "the  inward  temper  of  his  mind,"  as  Sir  Robert 
said.  James  had  complained  of  the  increased  confidence  of  the 
English  Catholics,  who  boasted,  "  that  none  shall  enter  to  be  king 
there  but  by  their  permission."  Cecil  replied  that,  as  to  the  Catholic 
priests,  "  I  shrink  to  see  them  die  by  dozens,  when,  at  the  last  gasp, 
they  come  so  near  loyalty."  He  had  only  voted  for  the  penal  laws 
because  he  regarded  the  priests  as  "persuaders  to  rebellion."  But 
he  had  no  mercy  for  Jesuits.  James  had  wished  to  see  the  latest 
edict  against  Catholic  priests  put  in  force  :  the  king  explains,  ''  I 
will  never  allow  in  my  conscience  that  the  blood  of  any  man  shall 
be  shed  for  diversity  of  opinions  in  religion,"  but  the  temporal 
results,  in  rebellion,  "  the  arch-priest  with  his  twelve  apostles,  keeping 
their  terms  in  London,  and  judging  all  questions  as  well  civil  as 


GOVERNS   SCOTLAND   BY   THE   PEN.  479 

spiritual  amongst  all  Catholics,"  these  things  he  could  not  endure. 
"  I  am  so  far  from  any  intention  of  persecution,  as  I  protest  to  God 
I  reverence  their  Church  as  our  mother  Church,  although  clogged 
with  many  infirmities  and  corruptions,  besides  that  I  did  ever  hold 
persecution  as  one  of  the  infallible  notes  of  a  false  church."  He 
wished,  not  the  deaths  of  priests,  but  their  expulsion. ^^  In  England,  as 
in  Scotland,  James  had  to  bear  ecclesiastical  meddling  with  temporal 
affairs.  His  own  personal  attitude  towards  belief  was  modern  ;  but 
he  had  to  do  with  another  condition  of  affairs,  in  which  all  political 
questions  were  made  religious  questions.  When  he  became  king  of 
England,  persecution  of  Catholics,  for  secular  reasons,  was  to  cause 
the  Gunpowder  Plot.  In  Scotland,  practically  in  the  interests  of 
the  freedom  of  the  secular  State,  James  was  to  intrigue  and  break 
the  law  to  keep  down  the  preachers  ;  and  the  pursuance  of  this 
policy,  trenching  on  convictions  narrow  but  sincere,  was  to  be  one 
of  the  causes  of  the  great  Civil  War.  That  war  we  may  deem 
inevitable  :  irreconcilable  forces,  impossible  claims  by  either  party, 
caused  the  strife.  The  real  history  of  Scotland  henceforth  is  more 
than  ever  ecclesiastical. 

When  he  crossed  the  border  James  left  behind  him  a  number  of 
the  Privy  Council  to  rule  Scotland.  They  were  the  working 
administration  directed  by  his  majesty's  letters.  He  governed 
Scotland,  he  said,  by  the  pen.  There  was  this  disadvantage  that, 
remote  from  the  scene,  he  did  not  know,  and  was  not  often  told, 
the  temper  of  the  country.  When  at  home  every  day  occurrences, 
usually  uncomfortable,  kept  him  informed.  Safe,  at  a  distance,  out 
of  hearing,  he  ventured  on  measures  which,  had  he  lived  among  his 
subjects,  he  would  not  have  dared  to  attempt.  One  useful  reform 
he  made  (August  11) — he  established  a  small  force  of  mounted 
constabulary.  A  body  of  forty  horse  was  raised  to  deal  with 
disorder,  to  hunt  down  "homers,"  that  is,  proclaimed  outlaws.^^ 
Scotland  had  hitherto  been  practically  destitute  of  police.  In  the 
matter  of  deadly  feuds  it  had  been  usual  for  the  parties  engaged 
merely  to  put  forward  "  cautioners," — guarantors  that  they  would  keep 
the  peace,  which  they  were  already  required  by  law  to  do.  Persons 
engaged  in  feuds  were  henceforth  to  be  imprisoned  and  heavily 
fined.  There  were  also  proclamations  against  needy  Scots  who 
flecked  into  England  without  license,  and  made  their  country  to 
stink  in  the  nostrils  of  the  Southrons.  James  took  measures,  too, 
for  settling  a  scheme  of  the  complete  union  of  "  Great  Britain,"  as 


48o  HAMPTON.  COURT   CONFERENCE   (1604). 

he  called  it,  but  the  time  was  not  ripe,  and  the  negotiations  dragged 
on  for  years  to  no  purpose. 

The  chiefs  of  the  Scottish  Government  were,  first,  that  notable 
octavian  of  1596,  Alexander  Seton,  the  President  of  the  Court  of 
Session,  created  Lord  Fyvie,  and,  later,  Lord  Dunfermline.  Sir 
George  Hume  was  presently  created  Earl  of  Dunbar,  and  was  an 
active  and  unscrupulous  minister.  The  Secretary  was  Elphinstone, 
now  Balmerino,  who  soon  fell  under  the  consequences  of  the 
feeble  and  obscure  trafifickings  with  Rome,  while  still  James 
was  king  of  Scotland  only.  Sir  Thomas  Hamilton  (later  Earl  of 
Haddington),  known  as  Tarn  of  the  Cowgate,  remained  King's 
Advocate.  He  was  accomplished  and  learned,  a  notable  antiquary, 
and  collector  of  the  manuscript  materials  of  history.  He,  too  (as 
we  see  in  the  account  of  the  trials  of  Sprot  and  Logan), ^'^  was  not  the 
most  immaculate  of  legal  officials.  Straiton  of  Lauriston  became 
undesirably  notable  for  his  dealings,  as  Royal  Commissioner,  with 
the  Kirk  and  the  General  Assembly.  Gledstanes,  Archbishop  of 
St  Andrews,  and  Spottiswoode,  the  historian,  who  had  succeeded 
Mary's  old  ambassador  in  France,  the  aged  Beaton,  as  Archbishop 
of  Glasgow,  with  other  bishops,  were  also  of  the  Privy  Council.^^ 
There  were  many  other  members,  especially  among  the  nobles,  in- 
cluding Mar,  but  the  most  active  and  prominent  have  been  named. 
They  took  their  orders  from  James,  and  executed  them  to  the  best 
of  their  power. 

The  affairs  of  the  Kirk  continued  to  be  of  most  importance.  In 
England  James  had  to  take  up  the  tangled  ecclesiastical  problems 
bequeathed  by  Elizabeth.  While  the  instincts  of  England  remained 
attached  to  such  relics  of  vestments,  order,  and  ritual  as  the 
Reformation  had  spared, — the  cap,  the  surplice,  kneeling  at  the 
Holy  Communion,  the  use  of  the  cross  in  baptism,  of  the  ring  in 
marriage, — the  preciser  sort  regarded  all  these  things  as  rags  and 
remnants  of  Rome.  Men  have  fought  and  will  brawl  about  such 
trifles  as  these,  and  the  temper  of  Christianity  has  been  and  will  be 
wasted  over  matters  hardly  apt  to  breed  a  quarrel  in  a  nursery. 
"  Greatly  to  find  quarrel  in  a  straw  "  of  this  kind,  however,  was,  on 
both  sides,  a  matter  of  conscience  and  a  point  of  honour.  "  They 
fight  for  great  causes,  but  on  small  occasions,"  says  Aristotle,  and 
the  Hampton  Court  Conference  of  January  1604  showed  what  part 
James  was  to  take  in  the  struggle.  In  every  corporate  body  there 
must     be     some     rulers.       Perhaps     human    wisdom     might     have 


THE   ASSEMBLY   OF   ABERDEEN    (1605).  48 1 

reconciled  Puritans  to  the  surplice  and  the  ring,  or  induced  Anglicans 
to  tolerate  the  absence  on  occasion  of  these  objects.  To  the 
Puritans  preaching  was  the  one  thing  supremely  needful,  and  being, 
as  a  rule,  the  more  intelligent  of  the  clergy,  they  were  apt  to  have 
the  larger  congregations.  James  had  no  objection  to  good  preaching 
which  did  not  interfere  with  secular  affairs.  But  he  fired  up  at 
some  reference  to  "the  bishop  and  his  presbyters,"  and  broke  into 
language  highly  unworthy  of  his  blood  and  of  the  occasion.  The 
Nonconformists  should  conform,  he  said,  otherwise  he  "  would  harry 
them  out  of  the  land,  or  else  do  worse."  He  was  said  to  have 
"  spoken  by  inspiration  of  the  Spirit."  Sir  John  Harington,  who 
was  present,  said  "  the  Spirit  was  rather  foul-mouthed."  James 
bade  the  Puritan  divines  "  away  with  their  snivelling."  "  He 
wished  that  those  who  would  take  away  the  surplice  might  want 
linen  for  their  own  breech."  ^^  No  question,  however  essentially 
trivial,  which  involved  the  consciences  of  men  could  be  handled  in 
this  temper.  Large  numbers  of  Nonconformist  divines  were  ejected 
from  their  livings.  The  House  of  Commons  was  justly  offended. 
James  was  sowing  the  wind  with  both  hands,  and  his  measures 
against  the  Catholic  priests  brought  on  the  Gunpowder  Plot. 

The  Synod  of  Fife  had  been  active,  as  usual,  in  Scotland,  and 
sent  representatives  to  Aberdeen,  for  a  meeting  of  the  General 
Assembly  (July  1604),  though  James  had  prorogued  that  Assembly, 
as  it  clashed  with  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners  to  consider  the 
Union  of  the  two  countries.  The  parliament  of  July  listened  to  a 
letter  from  the  king  about  the  Union,  and  restored  some  forfeited 
Bothwellites,  Douglas  of  Spot  and  Thomas  Cranstoun.^'^  On 
September  27,  James  issued  an  order  forbidding  the  preachers  to 
gather  conventions  without  the  Royal  assent. ^^  In  July  1605  James 
again  put  off  the  Assembly.  Having  heard  that  the  ministers  meant 
to  meet,  he  forbade  this  action  (June  20,  1605).  The  royal 
commissioner,  Straiton  of  Lauriston,  went  to  the  northern  town  and 
attempted  to  dissuade  the  gathered  preachers,  nineteen  in  all,  from 
disobeying  the  king.  However,  they  were  resolute,  though  the 
Moderator  of  the  last  Assembly  was  not  present  to  hand  on  the 
golden  chain  of  continuity.  They  had  elected  a  moderator  and  a 
clerk,  when  Straiton,  the  royal  commissioner,  interrupted  their  pro- 
ceedings. They  asserted  themselves  to  be  a  lawful  Assembly,  which 
Straiton  denied.  He  bade  them  quit  the  Assembly,  under  pain  of 
horning,  and  they  obeyed,  adjourning   to  a  day  not  appointed   by 

VOL.  11.  2  H 


482  DECLARED   SEDITIOUS. 

James.  Straiten  asserted,  the  friends  of  the  preachers  deny,  that  he 
had  forbidden  the  Assembly,  by  proclamation  at  the  Cross,  before  it 
was  constituted.  ^Much  legal  argument  turned  on  the  truth  or  false- 
ness of  this  averment.  About  ten  more  ministers  came  on  July  5, 
and  threw  their  lot  in  with  the  other  nineteen  brethren.  Among 
these  was  ]\Ir  Welsh,  in  early  youth  a  Border  thief,  next  a  highly 
unpopular  minister  at  Selkirk.  Ayr  was  now  his  charge,  and  he  had 
married  a  daughter  of  John  Knox.  He  was  an  uncommonly  resolute 
man,  and  a  descendant  of  his  was  a  famous  Covenanting  minister. 
Few  persons  did  more,  in  the  pulpit,  in  prison,  or  in  exile,  than  Mr 
Welsh  to  hand  on  the  old  Presbyterian  claims  and  principles. 

What  James  ought  to  have  done  in  this  pass  is  not  very  clear. 
The  Assembly  at  Aberdeen  had  been  held,  so  to  speak,  in  order  to 
keep  the  right  of  way  open.  The  Kirk,  by  the  law  of  1592,  had 
a  distinct  right  to  a  yearly  General  Assembly,  but  the  conditions  of 
royal  acquiescence  and  appointment  of  day  and  place  might  be 
diversely  interpreted  by  lawyers,  nor  dare  we  venture  on  so  thorny 
a  subject.  The  preachers  had  good  reason  to  fear  that  James  was 
about  to  withdraw  the  right  of  meeting.  They  represent  themselves 
as  meeting  legally,  dispersing  obediently,  and  treat  Straiton's  asser- 
tion that  he  had  proclaimed  the  Assembly  unlawful,  before  it  was 
constituted,  as  "  a  false  and  deadly  lie."  ^^  Very  probably  the  king's 
best  plan  would  have  been  to  let  the  thing  pass  and  avoid  making 
martyrs.  However,  on  July  19,  1605,  he  wrote  to  the  Council, 
denouncing  the  preachers  as  seditious,  and  avowing  his  intention  to 
oppose  the  beginnings  of  treason.  The  ministers  had  spoken  of 
obeying  "as  far  as  might  stand  with  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
testimony  of  their  conscience,"  that  is,  just  as  far  as  they  pleased. 
Their  prorogation  till  September  was  without  the  king's  assent  re- 
quested or  granted  ;  on  this  point  James  asked  for  legal  opinion,  as  he 
meant  to  use  the  rigour  of  the  law.^*^  This  was  James's  blunder  :  the 
Privy  Council,  left  to  themselves,  would  not  have  prosecuted  in  a 
cause  so  doubtful  and  perilous.  James  believed,  probably  correctly, 
that  the  stauncher  preachers  had  passed  the  year  in  forming  a  strong 
party  and  securing  votes.  He  found  that  the  northern  Presbyterians 
were  no  longer  to  be  trusted  to  "  go  solid  "  for  him.  Among  the 
nineteen  preachers  who  met,  and  the  ten  who  adhered  to  them,  were 
representatives  from  Nig,  near  Tain ;  from  Hawick,  on  the  Border ; 
from  Fife,  and  from  Ayr  in  the  south-west  Lowlands.  The  length 
andbreadthof  Presbyterian  Scotland  were  engaged,  "from  north  and 


THE   GOLDEN    ACT.  483 

south,  and  east  and  west,  they  summoned  their  array,"  though  the 
numbers  actually  present  at  Aberdeen  were  small.  Their  motive, 
as  we  said,  was  to  keep  the  right  of  way  open ;  for  this  purpose, 
before  dispersing,  they  fixed  a  date  for  an  Assembly  in  late 
September. 

It  is  dangerous  to  deal  with  the  law  of  the  case,  but,  probably, 
James  might  have  out-manoeuvred  the  godly.  "  That  golden  Act," 
as  Calderwood  styles  it,  the  fifth  Act  of  the  twelfth  Parliament  of 
James  VI.  (June  5,  1592),  regulated  thus  the  meetings  of  the 
General  Assembly  :  "  And  thus  ratifies  and  approves  the  General 
Assemblies  appointed  by  the  said  Kirk,  and  declares,  that  it  shall 
be  lawful  to  the  Kirk  and  ministers,  every  year  at  the  least,  and 
oftener,  pro  re  nata  (as  occasion  and  necessity  shall  require),  to  hold 
and  keep  General  Assemblies,  providing  that  the  King's  Majesty 
and  his  Commissioners  with  them,  to  be  appointed  by  his  Highness, 
be  present  at  the  General  Assemby  before  the  dissolving  thereof ; 
nominate  and  appoint  time  and  place  when  and  where  the  next 
General  Assemby  of  the  Kirk  shall  be  kept  and  holden."  ^^  Now 
the  king  and  his  commissioners  were  not  present  at  Aberdeen. 
Straiton,  the  commissioner,  was  in  the  town,  and  wandered  feebly 
in  and  out  of  the  little  gathering.  But  neither  he  nor  James 
appointed  time  and  place  for  the  next  Assembly.  The  preachers 
themselves  did  so,  and  thereby  broke,  we  think,  the  golden  Act. 
James  need  have  taken  no  official  notice  of  them.  He  might  have 
appointed  a  date  for  an  Assembly,  not  the  preachers'  date.  It  is 
almost  certain  that  the  majority  of  the  representatives  would  have 
attended  the  King's  Assembly,  not  the  apparently  illegal  Assembly 
convoked  for  September  by  the  nineteen.  These  zealous  men  would 
have  been  obliged  either  to  hold  their  own  September  Assembly  in 
opposition  to  the  king's,  or,  by  coming  to  his  Assembly,  to  confess, 
practically,  the  illegaUty  of  their  own.  Possibly  two  Assemblies 
would  have  met  and  mutually  excommunicated  each  other.  The 
Kirk  would  have  been  broken  up  into  two  factions,  as  it  was,  much 
later,  by  the  Protesters  and  Remonstrants,  and  by  the  Indulged  and 
the  refusers  of  the  Indulgence.  But  this  easy  stratagem,  so  congenial 
both  to  James  and  to  the  lawyer  minds  of  the  Kirk,  did  not  occur 
to  the  angry  monarch.  He  entered  on  a  system  of  prosecution 
which  irritated  men's  tempers,  made  martyrs,  and  could  not  be 
carried  through  save  by  bullying  and  cajoling  and  disreputable 
influences.     James  had  no  great  cause  for  anxiety.     He  was  sate  in 


484  "  NO   BISHOPS  !  " 

England.  It  is  improbable  that  the  great  nobles  would  have 
backed  the  Kirk  :  the  king  they  could  not  seize  on  the  old  plan 
of  the  old  French  ballade  :  il  n'y  a  rien  tel  que  (Tenlever.  How- 
ever, James  insisted  on  prosecutions,  and  the  Council  reluctantly 
obeyed. 

They  called  before  them  Forbes,  the  Moderator  at  Aberdeen,  and 
Welsh  of  Ayr.  These  men  they  warded  in  Blackness,  and  summoned 
the  others  for  August  i.  The  four  commissioners  of  the  Synod  of 
Fife  were  ordered  to  join  Forbes  and  Welsh,  wherefore  God  sent  a 
plague,  and  the  Chancellor's  son  died.  Sir  George  Hume,  of  the  house 
of  Manderstoun,  now  Earl  of  Dunbar,  was  none  the  less  made  Great 
Commissioner,  "  to  govern  all  Scotland,  Kirk,  and  commonweal." 
Certain  ministers  wrote  to  him,  warning  him  against  the  "  new  and 
young  bishops."  They  themselves  "  will  give  place  to  no  bishops  "  ; 
"in  this  opinion  we  will  die;  and  so,  we  are  assured,  will  the  best, 
yea,  even  the  greatest  part  of  the  ministry  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland." 
They  will  stand  for  a  bishopless  Kirk  as  the  poorest  subject  would 
"for  a  cot  and  a  kailyard."  This  was  the  real  ground  of  quarrel, 
for  this  the  Assembly  of  Aberdeen  had  been  held.  The  Kirk  fought 
against  the  insidious  introduction  of  bishops  having  authority  ;  men 
"  created,"  as  one  of  them  said,  by  the  king,  and,  being  his  creatures, 
whom  he  made  and  could  unmake,  certain  to  obey  him  in  every- 
thing. The  two  irreconcilable  and  intolerable  forces,  the  absolutisms 
of  preachers  and  of  prince,  are  henceforth  at  war.  In  the  end  the 
king  lost  his  unendurable  prerogative ;  the  Kirk  kept  out  bishops, 
but  had  to  abandon  its  insufferable  pretensions.  As  for  the  letter 
of  the  law,  it  went  where  it  must  go  in  revolutions — each  faction 
accusing  the  other  of  its  infringement. 

On  July  25  the  Assembly  for  September  was  proclaimed  illegal, 
as  it  apparently  was.  The  offenders  of  Aberdeen  were  summoned 
before  the  Council  for  October.  The  Synod  of  Fife  voted  for  post- 
poning the  September  Assembly  to  May  1606,  and  thought  of  trying 
to  gain  the  consent  of  the  king,  but  abandoned  that  idea.  They 
appointed  a  solemn  fast,  a  favourite  form  of  agitation.  James 
Melville  wrote  an  apology.  The  law  of  1592,  that  golden  Act,  not 
being,  perhaps,  quite  to  his  purpose,  he  averred  that  Christ  "  gave 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  to  pastors,  doctors,  and  elders. 
The  nineteen,  then,  who  assembled  at  Aberdeen,  "  had  the  warrant 
and  power  of  Jesus  Christ  so  to  do,"  an  argument  of  the  force  of 
which,  when  Cromwell  came,  we  may  say  solvitur  ambuiando.     James 


TRIAL   OF   THE   PREACHERS   (1605).  485 

did  now  fix  a  General  Assembly  for  the  last  Tuesday  of  July,  mean- 
ing, doubtless,  of  the  year  following  (1606),  but  by  accident  or 
design  the  year  was  not  specified.  The  prisoned  brethren  were 
summoned  for  October  24  to  hear  themselves  charged  with  seditious 
assembling.  They  declined  the  jurisdiction,  as  Black  had  done  in 
1596.  They  were  remitted  to  their  prisons,  while  a  Papist  was 
merely  banished  the  country,  a  thing  "  very  evil  taken  by  all  good 
men."  The  Gunpowder  Plot,  occurring  on  November  5,  caused  the 
afflicted  to  think  that  James  would  cease  to  pursue  Puritans  and 
preachers.  But  the  king  is  said  to  have  remarked  that,  while  the 
Papists  sought  his  life,  the  preachers  sought  his  crown. 

Early  in  1 606  Mar  and  Dunbar  were  sent  down  to  try  the  prisoners, 
a  task  which  Dunbar  sought  to  escape  from  by  working  privately  with 
the  accused,  through  a  minister.  "  Never  so  light  a  confession  "  of 
error  would  satisfy  James.  They  were  not  to  be  moved.  Next  day 
they  were  told,  before  the  Council,  that  if  they  would  "  pass  from  " 
the  Assembly  and  declinature,  "for  the  time  and  place,"  resuming 
their  case  again  when  they  pleased,  they  might  go  free.  They  asked 
leave  to  consult  the  Presbyteries ;  this  was  not  granted.  The 
prisoners  were  indicted  of  treason.  They  had  counsel ;  Mr  Thomas 
Hope  acquitted  himself  well.  They  argued  that  to  decline  the 
Council's  jurisdiction  was  not  treason ;  Mar  and  two  others  alone 
upheld  them  in  this  distinction.  The  King's  Advocate,  Hamilton, 
according  to  James  Melville,  threatened  the  jury ;  and  Mr  Forbes 
"  horribly  threatened "  the  Council  and  nobles  present.  He  also 
dwelt  on  Joshua  and  the  Gibeonites,  and  on  Saul,  whose  sons  were 
hanged,  "  the  quhilk  he  applyit  to  the  king."  This  was  not,  perhaps, 
very  tactful.  Under  these  spiritual  and  temporal  threats  the  jury, 
worked  on  by  the  Council  (who  said  that  capital  punishment  was 
not  intended),  found  the  prisoners  guilty  by  a  majority  of  nine  to 
six  (or  of  seven  to  six).  They  were  taken  back  to  prison,  their 
sentence  being  deferred. ^^ 

There  is  a  point  in  this  trial  usually  omitted  by  modern  historians 
(who  side  with  the  Kirk),  but  frankly  put  forward  by  James  Melville. 
The  King's  Advocate  threatened  the  jury,  all  men  of  family  and 
land,  that,  if  they  acquitted  the  accused,  "  he  would  protest  against 
them  for  error  wilfully  committed,  and  so  their  life,  lands,  and  goods 
to  fall  into  the  king's  hands."  Hamilton's  argument,  according  to 
Melville,  ran  that  it  was  proved  treason  to  decline  the  jurisdiction  ; 
the  jury  had  only  to  decide  whether  the  accused  had  declined  it 


486         THREAT  AND  COUNTER  THREAT. 

If  Hamilton  really  urged  that  to  decline  the  jurisdiction  was,  legally, 
treason,  the  Council  soon  gave  the  lie  to  his  statement.  But,  while 
we  detest  the  threats  to  the  jury,  modern  historians  usually  ignore 
the  counter  threats  of  Mr  Forbes.  He  was  a  preacher,  therefore 
one  of  those  to  whom  Christ  had  given  "  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  .  .  .  and  power  of  retaining  and  remitting  sins."^^ 
Melville  believed  this,  Forbes  believed  it,  probably  many  of  the 
jury  believed  in  this  wild  claim  to  the  keys  of  St  Peter.  On  the 
strength  of  this  doctrine,  so  absurd  that  it  is  practically  overlooked 
by  historians,  Mr.  Forbes  "  threitneing  most  terribill,  maide  all  the 
heireris  astonischit,  and  their  hairis  to  stand."  ^^  Manifestly,  here 
was  undue  influence  used  by  the  party  of  the  preachers  just  as 
much  as  by  the  party  of  the  Crown,  and  expressly  directed,  in  part, 
against  the  king.  The  jury  were  assured,  by  Mr  Forbes,  that  if 
they  condemned  him  and  his  friends,  they  were  God's  perjurers, 
and  broke  the  solemn  Covenant  with  the  Almighty.  What  they 
had  to  decide  was  merely  a  question  of  fact.  But  James  was 
entangled  in  the  meshes  of  the  Covenant  which  he  had  subscribed, 
and  caused  all  to  subscribe.  This  Covenant,  a  fancied  arrange- 
ment between  man  and  Omnipotence — a  spiritual  bargain — was  to 
overshadow  Scotland  till  the  Prince  of  Orange  refused  to  have  any 
concern  with  it.  So  long  did  the  spiritual  power  overrule,  or  try 
to  overrule  the  State,  by  the  sanction  of  "  horrible  threatenings  " 
which  caused  the  hair  of  all  who  heard  them  to  stand  on  end  with 
terror. 

Dr  M'Crie  says,  "of  what  avail  are  innocence  and  eloquence 
against  the  arts  of  corruption  and  terror."  Both  parties  used  "  the 
arts  of  terror."  To  glide  over  all  this,  and  all  that  it  implied,  as 
an  amiable  error  of  pleasing  enthusiasts,  is  to  misread  history. 
These  claims  had  to  be  put  down.  The  ministers  must  be  driven, 
and  finally  were  driven  out  of  this  position,  or  at  least  out  of  the 
practice  of  using  it  against  the  freedom  of  the  State  and  the 
individual.  Only  six  preachers  were  at  this  time  condemned  under 
the  law,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly  interpreted. 

On  January  22  James  wrote  to  the  Council.  He  had  to  answer 
what  was  to  be  done  with  the  condemned  six,  what  with  their 
fourteen  associates.  The  six  were  to  be  kept  au  secret  in  the 
closest  solitary  confinement,  as  in  the  Bastille.  A  declaration  was 
to  be  published  expressing  James's  ideas.  He  was  always  ready  to 
grant  a  General  Assembly;   he   had  just  appointed  one  for  July. 


ALARM   OF   THE   COUNCIL   (1606).  487 

What  he  objected  to  was  unlawful  conventicles.  The  matter  in 
hand  was  a  riot,  and  nothing  "  spiritual."  The  other  brethren,  the 
king  said,  must  be  tried  as  the  six  had  been.  The  Council  in 
Scotland  stood  aghast.  They  had  done  their  best.  They  had  now 
a  precedent,  "never  befoir  decernit" — never  settled — for  making 
declinature  of  jurisdiction  rank  as  treason.  But  they  had  provoked, 
as  they  knew,  the  discontent  of  the  subjects  of  all  degrees — noble, 
gentle,  and  simple  ;  Mar  had  expressed  his  disgust.  They  wished 
that  James  was  in  Scotland,  then  he  would  understand  the 
thoroughly  mutinous  temper  of  the  country.  The  Council,  many 
of  them  at  least,  would  not  .attend  at  a  new  trial.  Some  had 
already  passed  beyond  their  bounds  as  judges,  it  was  confessed,  to 
secure  the  late  success.  The  jury  were  become  objects  of  hatred, 
and  would  not  serve  again,  "  as  a  company  of  led  men."  A  new 
jury  would  not  be  bound  to  agree  with  the  old,  so  the  precedent 
did  not  count  for  much.  The  Council  had  been  in  despair  of 
securing  a  conviction  in  the  former  case.  A  fire  had  been  kindled 
that  was  running  over  the  whole  country.  There  was  danger  that 
"  the  greatest  power  of  every  estate  "  would  be  drawn  to  the  party 
of  the  preachers.  "  We  have  in  rigour  (the  like  whereof  was  never 
before  done),  convicted  of  treason  the  principal  workers  of  this 
business."  Some  of  the  Council  would  personally  explain  to  James 
in  London  the  nature  of  the  imperilled  situation. ^^ 

James  acquiesced,  and  did  not  push  his  Cadmeian  victory  further. 
His  method,  an  extreme  stretch  of  the  very  doubtful  letter  of  the 
law,  had  aroused  every  Scot  from  the  noble  to  the  cottar.  He  had 
created  the  sentiment  which,  under  his  ill-fated  son,  united  every 
class  and  rank  for  a  while  under  the  banner  of  the  Covenant.  The 
great  nobles  were  suspicious  of  the  bishops,  both  of  their  political 
influence  and  of  their  chance  of  regaining  alienated  ecclesiastical 
lands.  The  Scottish  administration,  especially  Dunfermline,  loved 
the  bishops  no  better.  Archbishop  Spottiswoode  is  said  not  only 
to  have  complained  to  James  of  Dunfermline's  enmity  to  the 
Episcopal  order,  but  to  have  accused  him  of  encouraging  Forbes 
before  the  Assembly  at  Aberdeen.^^  James  bade  the  Council 
investigate  these  charges  (February-June  1606),  and  examine  Forbes 
as  to  his  alleged  encouragement  by  Dunfermline.  Forbes  was  very 
cautious  in  his  evidence  as  to  Dunfermline,  who  himself  took  a 
high  line  of  denial,  and  James  finally  let  the  matter  pass.^^  Spottis- 
woode congratulated  himself  that  Dunfermline  was  induced,  by  his 


488  CADMEIAN   VICTORIES. 

recent  danger,  to  be  more  favourable  to  the  endowment  of  the 
bishops.  James's  prelates,  not  yet  full-fledged  or  even  ordained, 
had  already  accumulated  all  the  materials  of  the  bishops'  wars. 
In  October  the  six  ministers  were  banished,  under  pain  of  death 
if  they  returned,  and  with  threats  of  death  against  any  who 
followed  their  example.  Their  companions  were  exiled  to  remote 
isles.  It  is  almost  surprising  that  no  mutiny  occurred  in  the 
country. 

James  for  eight  years  (1602-1610)  kept  proroguing  the  General 
Assembly,  which  had  a  clear  legal  right  to  meet  annually.  He  was 
threatening  death  for  a  refusal  of  jurisdiction  which  the  ingenuity  of 
lawyers  could  scarcely  twist  into  treason.  He  proceeded  to  cut 
down  by  imprisonment  and  exile  on  the  flimsiest  pretexts,  and  by  the 
most  craven  methods,  the  remaining  leaders  of  the  Kirk.  He  also 
trafficked  with  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  in  new  and  unprincipled 
ways,  and,  if  he  did  not  actually  succeed  in  bribing  some  of  the 
ministers,  he  sent  money  for  that  purpose.  The  leading  idea  of 
the  ministers  was  the  result  of  uncritical  study  of  Scripture,  and 
was  inconsistent  with  a  free  State.  But  the  men  themselves  were 
of  courage  dauntless,  in  morality  unimpeachable,  wedded  to  an 
honourable  poverty,  often  refined  classical  scholars,  in  adversity 
cheerful,  and,  if  often  tactless  and  overbearing,  they  were  now  the 
victims  of  a  power  as  absolute  as  that  which  they  claimed,  and 
moreover,  mean,  arrogant,  and  unscrupulous.  In  contrast  with  the 
preachers  the  bishops  were  shamefully  pliant,  and,  though  really 
far  from  rich,  the  splendours  of  their  attire  in  riding  to  Parliament 
seemed  to  contradict  their  complaints  of  poverty.  None  of  them 
resisted  James  as  did  Abbot,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  when  the 
king  tried  to  practise  violence  on  his  conscience  in  the  disgraceful 
"  Nullity  "  case  of  Essex.  In  private  life  bishops  like  Spottiswoode 
may  have  been  excellent  men,  and  his  final  sufferings  deserve  our 
pity.  But  the  prelates  were  instruments  of  royal  caprice,  they  were 
courtiers,  their  whole  situation  was  deplorable,  and  it  is  no  marvel 
that  Scotland  remained,  quite  apart  from  the  right  or  wrongs  of  the 
abstract  question  between  Prelacy  and  Presbyterians,  determined  to 
endure  no  more  bishops. 

In  July  the  Red  Parliament,  so  styled  from  the  colours  of  the 
robes  of  the  nobles,  met  at  Perth  under  the  presidency  of  Dunbar. 
The  Assembly  appointed  for  July  was  prorogued  to  May  1507,  and 
other   prorogations    followed.       James's   excuse    was    that    he    had 


STRIFE   OF   NOBLES   AND   BISHOPS   (1606).  489 

summoned  certain  leading  ministers,  including  the  two  Melvilles,  to 
meet  him  in  England.  The  Red  Parliament  passed  an  Act  declaring 
the  king's  supremacy  "over  all  estates,  persons,  and  causes."  The 
Act  of  Annexation  of  the  temporalities  of  the  bishops  (1589)  was 
rescinded.  The  bishops  were  now  ten,  including  the  warlike 
Andrew  Knox,  who  took  George  Ker  with  the  Spanish  blanks. 
The  ministers  protested  against  the  episcopate,  but  the  commis- 
sioners of  the  General  Assembly  refused  to  review  the  "  caveats " 
which  limited  the  bishops  in  every  direction.  Andrew  Melville  made 
his  way  into  the  Parliament  and  spoke  with  his  wonted  freedom. 
The  jealousies  between  the  bishops  and  the  nobles,  owners  of  their 
temporal  estates,  were  prominent.^^  Little  of  a  constitution  as 
Scotland  had  ever  possessed,  in  this  Parliament  it  dwindled.  It 
may  be  remembered  that  in  the  angry  talk  between  Ruthven  and 
Mary  Stuart,  while  the  blood  of  Riccio  yet  reeked  on  the  palace 
floor,  Ruthven  charged  Mary  with  having  herself  nominated  the 
Lords  of  the  Articles,  the  Supreme  Committee  of  all  Estates,  for 
the  Parliament  that  was  to  forfeit  Murray.  In  the  Red  Parliament 
James  nominated  the  Lords  of  the  Articles  by  letter,  and  his  list 
was  quietly  accepted.^^  The  strife  between  the  bishops  and  the 
nobles  required,  so  the  Council  informed  James,  very  earnest  and 
delicate  handling.  The  nobles  were  bought  to  consent  to  the 
restoration  of  the  ancient  bishoprics  by  "  seventeen  new  creations 
of  spiritual  prelacies  in  temporal  lordships,"  says  James  Melville, 
which  Mr  Gardiner  interprets  as  the  carving  out  of  the  Crown 
property  of  "  no  less  than  seventeen  temporal  lordships  for  the 
nobility."  so 

James's  next  move  was  to  summon  the  two  Melvilles  and  six  other 
brethren  of  Fife  and  Lothian,  to  London,  where  they  arrived  at  the 
end  of  August  1606.  James's  conduct  as  regards  these  men  was 
inept,  inquisitorial,  and  violent.  He  harassed  the  ministers  with 
questions  as  to  their  views  of  the  Aberdeen  affair,  v.-hich  Andrew 
Melville  practically  remitted  to  the  General  Assembly.  Unluckily 
Melville  was  a  man  of  ungoverned  temper,  and  he  addressed  Sir 
Thomas  Hamilton,  the  King's  Advocate,  as  "  the  accuser  of  the 
brethren  "  (Kan/yo/aos  rQ>v  d8eA<^wv)  that  is,  the  devil.  "  I'e  God,  it 
is  the  develis  name  in  the  Revelatioune  !  "  cried  the  king,  as  the 
source  of  the  Greek  flashed  upon  his  memory.  James  Melville 
does  not  cite  the  Greek,  Spottiswoode  does.  Melville  was  carried 
into  his  indiscretion  while  inveighing  against  Hamilton  for  favouring 


490  THE   MELVILLES   MALTREATED. 

Catholics.  It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  sufferings  of  the  ministers 
whose  "  brains  were  stuffed  full  of  wine  and  music  "  on  one  occasion, 
without  more  solid  food.  They  had  to  listen  to  tedious  anti-presby- 
terian  sermons  from  bishops,  and  now  should  have  known  what 
Huntly,  Errol,  and  Angus  endured  from  the  sermons  of  the  brethren 
inflicted  on  them.  The  humourless  cruelty  of  that  age  must  ever 
be  admired.  Many  such  torments  were  invented  to  "  drive  time," 
and  keep  the  brethren  away  from  a  new  device  of  the  king's,  a 
clerical  convention  at  Linlithgow. 

The  kidnapped  preachers  were  told  they  were  to  be  "warded"  in 
bishops'  houses,  as  if  they  had  committed  some  offence.  They  had 
been  taken  into  the  king's  chapel,  and  the  spectacle  of  unlighted 
candles,  closed  books,  and  empty  chalices  on  the  altar  moved  Andrew 
Melville  to  make  a  Latin  epigram.  He  asked  if  the  Church  of  England 
was  imitating  the  Purple  Harlot  (otherwise  Scarlet  Woman)  of  Rome, 
with  other  rhetorical  questions  of  a  rather  offensive  character.  To 
such  effusions  a  man  may  be  driven  by  sermons,  and  Melville  did 
not  publish  the  verses.  But  they  reached  James,  and  he  seized  his 
opportunity,  Melville  was  summoned  to  Whitehall,  and  "being 
spoken  to  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  says  James  Melville, 
"took  occasion  plainly  in  the  face,  before  all  the  Council,  to  tell 
him  all  his  mind."^^  It  was  not  "a  piece  of  his  mind,"  but  all  of 
it,  that  Andrew  bestowed  upon  the  startled  prelate.  The  sight  of 
two  books,  two  chalices,  and  two  candles  had  goaded  him  to  an 
extreme  indignation.  The  Archbishop,  he  vociferated,  was  guilty 
of  all  sorts  of  enormities,  such  as  "  setting  up  antichristian 
hierarchy"  and  Sabbath  breaking.  He  then  seized  Bancroft  by 
the  sleeves  and  "shook  them"  (and  perhaps  the  Archbishop), 
"  in  his  manner,  freely  and  roundly  " ;  he  had  once  laid  hands  on 
the  king  "in  his  manner."  He  went  on  to  call  the  sleeves  "the 
Beast's  mark,"  and  to  declare  himself  Bancroft's  enemy  "  to  the 
effusion  of  the  last  drop  of  all  the  blood  in  his  body,"  that  is, 
if  Bancroft  was  really  the  author  of  a  certain  antipresbyterian 
pamphlet.  These  proceedings  were  rather  in  the  style  of  the 
Laird's  Jock,  or  Kinmont  Willie,  than  of  a  reverend  professor  of 
St  Andrews.  Andrew  was  entrusted  by  the  Council  to  the  Dean 
of  St  Paul's,  with  him  to  remain  till  the  king's  pleasure  was  known. 
He  was  later  transferred  to  the  Tower,  and,  after  four  years  of 
captivity,  was  banished.  He  obtained  a  chair  in  the  University  of 
Sedan,  where  he  died.     James  Melville  was  relegated  to  Newcastle. 


ABUSE   OF   PREROGATIVE.  49I 

Melville  had  displayed  the  vehemence  of  his  character,  and  the 
intolerance  with  which  he  regarded  all  forms  of  Christianity  except 
his  own.  But  he  was  imprisoned  in  and  banished  from  a  country 
of  which  he  was  not  a  citizen  by  an  inexcusable  abuse  of  arbitrary 
power.  The  motive  was  to  keep  him  and  his  nephew  James  out 
of  Scotland,  where  the  king  was  attempting  new  manoeuvres. 
Between  the  end  of  1606  and  16 10  he  entirely  succeeded  in 
getting  for  his  bishops  Episcopal  authority.  In  1607,  as  we 
learn  from  Calderwood,  a  bishop  dared  not  exercise  authority,  be- 
cause his  presbyters  might  turn  again  and  excommunicate  him, 
like  Adamson  and  Montgomery.  It  may  seem  strange  that  James 
did  not,  through  Parliament,  deprive  the  brethren  of  this  dan- 
gerous weapon,  excommunication,  or  at  least  deprive  it  of  all  civil 
sanction.  Perhaps  he  thought  that  it  might  prove  useful  against 
Catholics. 

The  measures  which  he  adopted  may  be  briefly  enumerated. 
He  had  already  cut  down  or  broken  under  foot  some  thirty  of  the 
taller  thistles  in  the  Kirk's  kail-yard.  The  most  eminent  and 
recalcitrant  preachers  were  in  exile,  or  far  away  in  the  Highlands 
and  islands,  or  confined,  under  supervision,  to  their  own  parishes. 
In  their  enforced  absence  James  summoned  to  Linlithgow,  in 
December  1606,  a  convention  of  preachers.  It  was  not  called  as 
a  General  Assembly,  nor  known  under  that  name,  till  it  had  done 
its  work.  Then  James  styled  it  by  the  solemn  name  of  a  General 
Assembly  :  his  opponents  did  not.  The  brethren  were  told  that 
they  were  to  give  "advice,"  not  votes.  The  king  had  discovered 
that,  to  put  the  brethren  in  good  humour,  there  was  nothing  like 
Catholic-baiting.  The  necessity  and  difficulty  of  smelling  out 
and  denouncing  Catholics  and  Jesuits  was  dwelt  upon.  Then  it 
was  suggested  that  a  per?nanefit  clerical  "  agent "  for  these  purposes 
should  exist  in  each  Presbytery,  or  group  of  associated  kirks.  The 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  the  "  agent "  was  to  receive,  as 
such,  jQioo  (Scots)  annually.  Next,  this  agent  might  also  be 
perpetual  or  constant  moderator  of  his  Presbytery — taking  the  place 
of  a  series  of  shifting  moderators  elected  on  each  occasion.  In 
their  own  Presbyteries  the  bishops,  or  acting  subordinates  paid  by 
them,  should  be  constant  moderators. 

This  device  threw  most  of  the  administrators  of  the  Kirk  into  the 
king's  pay  and  power.  About  one  hundred  and  thirty  ministers  were 
present  at  this  convention,  and  more  than  thirty  nobles,  including 


492  LINLITHGOW   CONVENTION    (1606). 

Montrose,  and  the  astute  manager,  Dunbar.  Of  these,  Calderwood 
informs  us,  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  were  "  corrupted  "  with  hope, 
fear,  honour,  or  money,  for  many  places  of  ;^ioo  apiece  were  going. 
Thus  by  an  unanimous,  or  all  but  unanimous  vote,  permanent 
moderators,  who  also  served  as  anti-catholic  "agents,"  were  nominated 
for  every  Presbytery.^-  A  number  of  unsummoned  ministers  were 
present,  and  occasion  was  thereby  taken  to  style  the  Linlithgow 
convention  a  General  Assembly.  No  formal  recorded  Act  of  the 
meeting  could  be  obtained  and  read  for  many  months  later,  and, 
when  it  did  appear,  it  was  looked  on  as  forged  and  contaminated, 
like  Sprot's  confessions  in  the  Gowrie  affair.  Montrose  and  the 
other  managers  were  delighted  by  their  success  ;  even  the  preachers 
"  who  came  of  set  purpose  to  oppose  "  were  brought  into  the  general 
harmony.  The  meeting,  and  all  the  lords,  heartily  petitioned  James 
to  allow  Mr  Bruce  to  leave  Inverness  and  return  to  Kinnaird  for 
his  health,  but  James  was  unmoved.^^  On  January  3,  1607,  James 
issued  a  letter  enforcing  the  decision  of  the  Linlithgow  convention. 
Too  many  of  the  Presbyteries,  he  said,  were  "addicted  to  anarchy," 
and  were  apt  to  "  refuse  such  a  constant  moderator  as  has  been 
concluded  upon  in  the  General  Assembly."  The  use  of  these  terms 
was  mere  pettifogging.  However,  a  Presbytery  that  refused  a 
constant  moderator,  or  a  moderator  who  declined  to  be  constant, 
must  be  "put  to  the  horn  "  as  rebellious.^'' 

Throughout  the  year  1607  the  attempt  was  made  to  thrust  these 
constant  moderators  not  only  on  the  Presbyteries,  but  on  the 
Synods,  or  Provincial  Councils  of  the  Kirk.  Wild  scenes 
followed,  as  at  Perth,  where  Lord  Scone  (who  had  succeeded  to 
much  of  the  Gowrie  possessions)  tried  to  force  the  Synod  to  his 
will,  sat  in  the  moderator's  chair,  and  locked  the  Synod  out  of  the 
church.  They  met  in  the  open  air,  and  the  faithful  of  Fife  met  on 
the  sea  sands  in  a  day  of  heavy  rain.^^  Many  other  Synods  were  as 
contumacious ;  nothing  had  been  decided  at  Linlithgow,  it  was 
said,  as  to  Synodal  moderators.  Wherever  there  was  a  bishop,  the 
king  declared,  he  was  to  be,  ex  officio,  constant  moderator  of  his 
Synod.  Men  asked  for  a  view  of  the  Act  of  Linlithgow  sanctioning 
these  novelties.  On  August  18,  1607,  the  Synods  were  presented 
at  last  with  the  Act.  In  the  Synod  of  Lothian  the  brethren  who 
had  been  at  Linlithgow  said  that  nothing  had  been  arranged  as  to 
Synodal  moderators. ^^  The  General  Assembly,  to  have  met  at 
Dundee,    was    prorogued    to    April    160S.      James    occupied    the 


OPPRESSION   OF   THE   MINISTERS   (1608).  493 

interval  in  lopping  the  taller  heads  of  the  stubborn  thistles.  A 
Stirlingshire  minister,  for  "wandering  about"  and  "general 
Presbyterian  restlessness "  (as  Dr  Masson  says),  was  confined  to 
his  own  parish.  Four  other  opponents  of  constant  moderators, 
were  shut  up  in  Blackness.  Calderwood  himself,  the  erudite 
historian,  then  a  young  minister  at  Crailing,  was  confined  to  his 
very  pleasant  parish ;  Sir  Gideon  Murray  of  Elibank  looked  after 
the  contumacious  of  the  Jedburgh  Presbytery. ^^ 

At  last  there  was  a  General  Assembly  at  Linlithgow  at  the 
end  of  July  160S.  Dunbar  was  in  Scotland  on  this  business, 
when  Sprot  was  tried  and  hanged  for  the  Gowrie  affair.  The 
time  of  the  Assembly  was  cleverly  filled  up  by  the  delightful 
process  of  excommunicating  Huntly,  who  had  never  really  been 
an  earnest  professor,  "  despite  all  the  sermons  that  were  in- 
flicted on  him."  Other  measures  against  Catholics  were  taken, 
but  the  dispute  of  the  king  and  the  Kirk  was  deferred  to  a 
more  convenient  season,  mixed  commissions  being  appointed  to 
consider  matters.  Uunbar  is  said  to  have  brought  ;^  14,000  in 
gold  with  him  to  this  Assembly,  whether  it  found  its  way  into 
clerical  pockets  may  well  be  doubted.  In  May  1610,  when  another 
General  Assembly  was  coming  on  in  June,  the  king  certainly  sent 
10,000  marks  to  Dunbar  for  distribution  among  useful  people.^^ 
This  Assembly  was  packed,  especially  with  ministers  from  the  ex- 
treme north  (who,  to  be  sure,  had  a  right  to  be  present).  Spottis- 
woode  was  Moderator,  and  Episcopacy  was  at  last  established. 
The  king's  prerogative  was  acknowledged ;  the  disputed  Assembly 
of  Aberdeen  was  condemned ;  sentences  of  excommunication  were 
invalid  unless  ratified  by  the  bishop  of  the  diocese,  who  was  also 
to  preside  in  trials  for  the  deposition  of  ministers,  and  was  to 
inquire  into  the  conduct  of  those  in  his  see.  Ministers,  when 
inducted,  had  to  take  an  oath  to  the  king  and  do  homage  for  their 
livings.  The  bishops,  however,  were  still  subject  to  the  censure  of 
General  Assemblies  (as  this  odd  kind  of  bishop  from  the  days  of 
Morton  downwards  had  ever  been),  and  they  still  needed  consecra- 
tion by  Episcopal  hands,  a  rite  implying  the  doctrine  of  apostolical 
succession.  James  had  nearly  completed  his  edifice,  soon  he 
crowned  it,  a  building  that  did  not  endure  for  a  generation.  He 
had  asserted  the  freedom  of  the  State  (as  represented  by  himself), 
by  what  measures,  how  petty,  how  illegal,  how  cunning,  and  how 
arbitrary,  we  have  shown. ^^     This  house  was  founded  on  the  sand ; 


494  PERSECUTION   OF   CATHOLICS. 

the  institution  of  these  bishops  was  a  mere  trick  of  state-craft,  and 
was  contrary  to  the  conscience  and  the  rooted  ideas  of  every 
sincere  man  in  Scotland,  CathoHc  or  Presbyterian.  But  James 
had  not  yet  interfered  with  the  order  of  worship,  the  prayers  were 
still  extemporary,  or  strings  of  formulae  adhering  to  the  memory  of 
the  minister.  There  was  no  service-book,  and  the  communion  was 
received  sitting,  in  the  old  fashion  of  Knox.  No  particular  change 
irritated  the  ordinary  parishioner;  nothing  was  "read,"  a  thing  in- 
expressibly odious  to  the  Scot ;  there  were  no  responses,  no  vest- 
ments, none  of  the  provocations  which  had  such  strange  power  to 
excite  the  fury  of  the  multitude 

The  position  of  conscientious  Presbyterians,  like  Calderwood, 
was  far  from  enviable  at  this  period.  They  might  preach  and  pray, 
but  it  was  dangerous  to  pray  and  preach  on  the  politics  of  the  hour : 
he  who  did  so  was  "in  danger  of  the  Council."  The  royal  decree 
controlled  the  operations  of  the  Spirit ;  the  royal  hand  was  im- 
piously laid  on  the  ark.  Presbyteries  were  far,  indeed,  from  what 
they  had  been,  and  General  Assemblies  were  no  longer  free  and 
open  Parliaments.  On  the  other  side  the  position  of  the  Catholics 
was  practically  desperate.  Our  historians  never  say  much  on  that 
head :  the  imprisonments  of  Errol  and  Huntly,  the  self-exile  of 
Angus,  who  died  abroad,  are  briefly  touched  upon,  but  we  hear 
nothing  of  the  distresses  of  the  conscientious  Catholics  in  general. 
Scotland  owed  her  all  but  universal  Protestantism  to  persecution  ; 
and,  in  Father  Forbes  Leith's  "  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,"  we 
learn  how  the  persecution  was  conducted.  Father  Abercromby, 
writing  on  July  i,  1602,  says,  "All  are  now  compelled  with  tears  to 
submit  to  the  king,  and  to  the  law  passed  by  his  authority,  the 
alternative  being  for  the  rich  either  exile  or  the  loss  of  all  their 
goods,  which  for  the  sake  of  their  wives  and  children  they  will  not 
risk ;  and  for  the  poor,  if  they  refuse  obedience,  to  be  turned  adrift 
by  their  lords  from  the  lands  they  cultivate."**^  ,  .  .  We  have 
seen,  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  volume,  that  Mary  of  Guise  deplored 
the  insecure  and  brief  tenures  of  the  small  farmers ;  both  she 
and  Queen  Mary  tried,  by  their  personal  influence,  to  protect  poor 
tenants.  Now  they  were  evicted  merely  for  their  religion  if  they 
were  Catholics,  but  all  these  persecutions  are  glided  over  noise- 
lessly by  historians. 

The  queen,  Anne  of  Denmark,  had  been  converted,  secretly, 
to   the   old   faith,  writes   Father   MacQuhirrie,   S.J.,  in    1601;  the 


SUCCESS   OF   THE   PERSECUTION.  495 

conversion,  it  seems,  was  of  1598.  In  1605,  Father  James 
Seton  describes  the  Earl  of  DunfermHne,  the  practical  governor 
of  Scotland,  as  a  secret  Catholic,  though  publicly  professing 
Presbyterianism.  Otherwise  he  was  an  upright  man,  as  the  times 
permitted,  and  we  have  seen  that  he  successfully  resisted  an 
injustice  of  the  king  towards  Mr  Robert  Bruce.  He  signed  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  though  he  came  to  Catholic  confession  and 
communion.  John  Colville,  the  old  agent  of  the  Lords  of  the 
Ruthven  Raid,  and  the  ally  of  Bothwell,  and  the  spy  of  Cecil, 
having  fallen  into  poverty,  became  a  Catholic,  went  to  Rome,  saw 
the  Pope,  and  took  money  from  him.  Probably  he  changed  his 
creed,  as  Dunfermline  concealed  his  own,  merely  for  worldly  reasons. 
In  1605  Father  Creighton  regretted  that,  in  Scotland,  Catholics 
could  not,  as  in  England,  escape  from  going  to  Protestant  churches 
on  condition  of  paying  fines.  "  The  power  of  the  heretical  ministers 
is  so  great  that  they  can  compel  every  one  to  subscribe  their  false 
confession  of  faith,  attend  their  sermons,  and  take  the  profane 
supper  of  the  Calvinist  rite,  or  else  lose  all  his  goods,  and  go  into 
banishment."  The  process  was  that  the  constant  moderator  nosed 
out  a  Catholic,  cited  him  to  conform,  had  him  excommunicated  if 
he  refused,  and,  forty  days  later,  charged  with  treason,  confiscated, 
and  banished. ^^  The  new  mounted  police  arrested  Catholics,  as 
they  arrested  Border  reivers.  One  Catholic  noble,  unnamed, 
evaded  the  Kirk  by  pretending  to  have  broken  his  leg  by  a  fall 
from  horseback,  in  presence  of  a  surgeon  and  a  notary  !  By  culti- 
vating a  limp  he  evaded  excommunication  for  a  whole  year. 
Balmerino,  like  Dunfermline,  escaped  by  feigning  Presbyterianism. 
There  were  but  three  or  four  priests  left  in  Scotland,  and  by  this 
drastic,  unrelenting  persecution,  unhasting  and  unresting,  the 
country  was  drilled  into  almost  uniform  conformity  and  systematic 
hypocrisy.  All  Catholics  had  to  choose  between  loss  of  lands  and 
goods  and  native  country,  or  loss  of  conscience  and  honour.  Per- 
haps no  persecution  was  ever  so  successful.  No  showy  martyrdoms, 
with  one  exception,  occurred,  but  there  was  an  unceasing  strain  on 
conscience  and  belief. 

We  have  here  dwelt  mainly  on  ecclesiastical  affairs  as  these 
affected  the  whole  course  of  history.  But  Parliament,  in  1606-08, 
was  busy  with  the  affairs  of  the  lawless  Earl  of  Orkney,  the  equally 
lawless  Lord  Maxwell,  with  the  condition  of  the  Borders,  and  with 
the    trial  and  forfeiture  of  Logan   of    Restalrig  (died   July  1606), 


496  LETTER   OF   OGILVIE   OF   POURIE. 

for    his    alleged    share    in    the    Gowrie    conspiracy.  Concerning 

the    Orkneys,     the     Highlands,     the    Borders,    and  Maxwell,    an 

account  is  given  later,  in  a  separate  chapter,  while  the  complex 
business  of  Restalrig  is  discussed  in  Appendix  B. 

Letter  of  Ogilvie  of  Pourie  to  the  King,  i6oi. 

(Hatfield  MS.  90,  vol.  cxxxvi.  fol.  136.) 

Endorsed :  Fury  Ogleby  160 1. 

It  will  plears  yo'  M.  Vnderstand 

That  cuming  out  of  Dumfermling  to  Edinbru  to  home  satisfeit  yo''  M.  desyr  and 
finding  my  selft"  persewit  &  forst  by  y''  Magistratis  and  vth"^  in  yo""  M.  name  I 
culd  do  no  les  then  escheu  the  first  furie  and  appeale  with  y^  Macedonian  suldart 
A  Phillippo  male  consulto  et  {sic)  Philippum  bene  consultum  Therof  I  craue  yo'"  M. 
pardon,  thus  absenting  my  selff  for  no  offence  that  ever  I  committed  aynest  yo"" 
M.  in  or  without  the  cuntrey  bot  for  safetie  of  my  Lyffe  as  ane  beast  but  reason 
wold  do.  I  am  most  sorrie  for  yo""  M.  reputacionis  cause  that  vther  princes 
sould  heer  of  yo""  M.  creuell  Dealing  aganest  me  hawing  ment  so  weill  at  yo''  M. 
handis  therof  they  can  beare  me  witnes,  for  so  sail  yo''  M.  be  thocht  of,  conforme 
as  yo""  enemies  head  informit,  at  least  ane  ongrate  prince,  and  I  ane  manifast  liar 
qnha  hes  informit  thame  so  weill  of  yo'"  M.  I  hoip  that  yo''  M.  will  wse  my  pour 
wyffe  and  bairnes  according  to  yo"^  wonted  clemencie.  And  for  my  selff  iff  I  can 
not  Hue  in  the  cuntrey,  I  will  accept  of  the  croce  that  god  layis  on  me  for  my  sinis 
agnest  his  heavenlie  M.  And  cum  cristo  fugere  ex  vna  civitate  in  aliam  it  is  that 
god  sufferis  pipell  to  be  scurged  inderectlie  &  thairof  castis  y''  trew  scorge  in  the 
fyre.  Take  hearte  ser  and  begine  anes  to  think  weill  of  thame  quha  lufifis  yo""  M. 
honor  &  standing.  And  sence  God  hes  beine  so  manie  tymes  so  mercifull  to  zow. 
Be  not  cruell  w^  yo'  M.  Debtoris  iff  zou  wold  not  be  cossin  wi'  that  ewell  (?)  Debtor 
of  the  evangell  in  perpetuall  prison.  As  for  that  yo"^  M.  wold  lay  agaynest  me  I 
nevir  had  on  vse  ony  commission  of  yo""  Ma*''^  to  ony  forrant  prince  in  my  Lyffe, 
nather  in  Flaunders  France  nor  Spaine,  Not  witstanding  all  yo''  M.  Intelligenrs 
in  the  contrar  q^^  ar  fals  &  cunterfeit  as  I  salbe  aible  to  prove.  I  have  delt  and 
beine  delt  with  indeid,  but  alwayis  in  matteris  that  consernit  yo""  M.  standing  and 
the  Weill  of  yo''  M.  cuntrey  Zet  for  satisfaction  of  yo""  Majestie  hawinge  suretie  of 
my  lyffe  and  heritage  I  am  content  to  enter  in  Vard,  and  say  q^sumever  yo""  M. 
sail  coiTiand  me  Or  vtherwayes  to  go  presentlie  out  of  the  cuntrey,  for  if  my  Lord 
Simple  past  to  Spaine  w*  zo''  M.  commission,  his  Instructions  bearing  the  same 
headis  q''of  I  wes  thocht  to  haue  delt  q*-  satisfaction,  can  my  Varding  be  to 
Ingland  q^  incistis  in  no  wayis  agenest  me,  finding  me  Innocent  of  all  such 
calumnies  Layd  agnest  me  at  my  being  in  London,  and  iff  zour  M.  suld  mislyke 
more  of  my  cuming  throgh  Ingland  then  dealing  in  Spaine,  as  sum  curious  pipell 
dois  imagen,  sens  zo''  M.  was  of  oppinions  that  I  suld  have  bene  tane  by  my 
owne  advyss  zo''  M.,  giff  I  durst  say  it,  dois  me  Wrong  for  I  beare  the  guide  will 
and  culd  do  yo''  M.  better  service  there  then  mony  subiectis  yo''  M.  hes  And  iff 
vthers  be  reveilit  vpon  conisouh  accussit  of  the  same  thingis  And  more  suspect  by 
Ingland  nor  I,  q*  can  it  harme  zo"^  M.  or  offend  Ingland  to  grant  me  the  lyke 
benefeit.  And  iff  it  be  bot  my  Lyffe  as  appearis  socht  Inderectlie,  Prestat  sapore 
alieno  exenipto,  Nathur  can  yo''  M.  justlie  blame  to  be  als  diligent  in  saiffing  my 


NOTES.  497 

lyffe  as  vthers  ar  cunning  and  subteill  in  crawing  my  sackless  bluid.  As  for  geer 
I  haue  non  And  Lyttil  Land  yet  the  hous  is  so  myne  And  so  mony  honest  men 
cwme  of  it  that  I  traist  that  zo""  M.  will  not  sie  it  perish  alto"^  all  the  foresaidis  I 
am  becwme  throw  my  trwbles  &  gryte  travell  so  ill  at  eas  and  debilitat  that  only 
Warding  war  sufficient  to  make  my  pwre  unprovydit  barnes  fatherles,  if  non  of 
thar  may  mowe  yo''  M.  to  Justice  and  petie  I  must  remit  my  cause  to  God  and 
seik  to  so  serve  sum  vther  prince  as  I  mynd  to  die  rather  a  confessor  nor  a 
martire.  One  thing  may  I  justlie  say  with  the  freir  that  was  put  in  the  gallies  for 
saiing  of  thre  or  fowr  messes  everie  day  that  I  am  punished  per  auer  facto  troppo 
ben.  Speik  zo""  M.  q*  eveill  zou  pleas  of  me  I  will  alwayis  think  &  speik  weill  of 
zo""  M.  Althogh  by  this  reason  as  Plutark  tellis  the  teale  I  must  neids  be  a  knaiff 
Aither  becaus  zo''  M.  quha  is  good  speikis  evill  of  me  or  than  iff  zo''  M.  be  not  giude 
becaus  I  speik  giude  of  ane  evill  man  Bot  sir  kaik  is  no  scheiris  (?)  I  luike  for 
better  of  zo""  M.  And  kissing  zo"^  M.  princlie  handis  with  all  deutifull  humilitie  I 
pray  the  eternall  God  to  preserwe  zo""  M.  and  oppine  zo""  eisor  they  my  breist  that 
yo''  M.  may  sie  as  Simonius  desyrit  The  Invard  cogitacionis  of  my  trewe  hart. 
Raptim  1601. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    XVIII. 

^  Bruce,  Correspondence  of  James  VI.     Camden  Society,   1S61,  xxv.,  xxviii. 
80,  81. 

2  Hailes,  Secret  Correspondence  of  Cecil,  1766. 

3  Bruce,  81,  84. 

■*  Pitcaim,  ii.  408,  409. 
®  Thorpe,  ii.  796,  798. 

^  Thorpe,  ii.  799.     See  a  singular  letter  from  Pourie  to  James  at  the  end  of 
this  chapter.     It  is  from  the  Cecil  Papers,  Hatfield  MSS. 
■^  Calderwood,  vi.  146-148,  153-156. 

^  Remarks  on  the  History  of  Scotland,  pp.  254-264  ;  1773. 
9  Thorpe,  ii.  815. 
"  Thorpe,  ii.  814. 
^1  Border  Papers,  ii.  523. 

^^  Bruce,  Correspondence  of  James  VI.  and  Cecil,  pp.  30-38. 
13  Privy  Council  Register,  vi.  581,  582. 
^'*  Restalrig  and  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy.     Appendix  B. 
15  Privy  Council  Register,  vii.  xiii.  xxi. 
'^  Nugce  Antiquse,  i.  1 81,  1 82. 
1"  Act  Pari.  Scot.,  iv.  262-276. 
IS  Privy  Council  Register,  vii.  13,  14. 
^9  James  Melville,  574. 
^  Privy  Council  Register,  vii.  474,  475. 
21  Act  Pari.  Scot.,  iii.  541. 

^  James  Melville,  570-626  ;  Register,  Privy  Council,  vii.  478   486. 
23  Melville,  p.  596. 
"^  Melville,  p.  625. 

2'  Register,  Privy  Council,  vii,  480-486. 
VOL.   II.  2  I 


498  NOTES. 

"^  Forbes's  Records  touching  the  Estate  of  the  Kirk,  501,  502,  note  (Wodrow 
Society) ;  Spottiswoode,  iii.  174,  1 75. 

^  Register,  Privy  Council,  vii.  492,  497,  and  notes;  Forbes,  546,  551. 

^  Calderwood,  vi.  4S5-495. 

^^  Melros  Papers,  Lords  of  Council  to  James,  i.  p.  15  ;  Act  Pari.  Scot.,  iv.  2S0. 

^°  Gardiner,  i.  316  (1900) ;  Melville,  p.  640. 

2'  Melville,  679. 

^-  Calderwood,  vi.  608. 

^^  Original  Letters,  edited  by  Mr  Botfield,  Bannatyne  Club,  vol.  i.  pp.  70-71. 

34  Privy  Council  Register,  vii.  299-302. 

35  Privy  Council  Register,  vii.  347-349- 

36  Privy  Council  Register,  vii.  432,  note. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  viii.  20,  50S-510. 
^  Privj-  Council  Register,  viii.  844. 

^  Privy  Council   Register,  viii,   473-475,    notes ;    Calderwood,    vii.    94  - 103  ; 
Spottiswoode,  iii.  205-208. 
■*°  Forbes  Leith,  269,  note  I. 
^  Forbes  Leith,  284,  28^. 


499 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

THE    LAST    YEARS    OF    JAMES    VI. 
1603-1624. 

If  the  nations  are  happy  which  have  no  constitutional  history,  then 
Scotland  was  fortunate  between  the  establishment  of  Episcopacy,  in 
1610,  and  James's  later  interferences  with  the  old  Presbyterian  forms 
of  public  worship.  There  were,  of  course,  feuds,  as  we  have  just 
shown,  and  there  were  Highland  disturbances,  but  the  affairs  of  the 
Celtic  part  of  the  kingdom  must  be  treated  of  in  a  separate  chapter. 
There  were  also  occasional  troubles  with  a  recalcitrant  preacher, 
such  as  our  historian,  Calderwood  himself.  But  the  centre  of  affairs 
was  now  London,  where  there  was  much  irritation  against  James's 
Scottish  followers,  and  where  a  Scottish  favourite,  Ker,  Earl  of 
Somerset,  involved  him  in  circumstances  still  obscure,  but,  to  an 
unascertained  „  extent,  discreditable.  This  perplexed  matter,  how- 
ever, is  of  merely  personal  interest,  and  forms  no  part  of  the  history 
of  Scotland.  James's  desire  for  a  regular,  thorough,  incorporating 
union  of  the  countries,  such  as  Major  had  longed  for  before  the 
Reformation,  such  as  Henderson  dreamed  of  after  the  fall  of 
Cardinal  Beaton  (see  Chapter  II.),  was  creditable  to  the  king,  and 
to  Bacon  who  supported  him.  But  the  proposal  broke  down 
against  the  jealousies,  commercial,  ecclesiastical,  and  social,  of  the 
two  nations.  The  Union  of  1707  was  almost  equally  unpopular 
with  Highland  and  Lowland  Jacobites,  and  with  Whig  or  Hano- 
verian Scottish  earls,  in  1745,  after  forty  years  of  experience  of  the 
measure.  We  may  guess,  then,  how  little  chance  an  Act  of  Union 
had  in  passing,  when  James  was  a  new  king  in  England,  and  when 
ballads  against  the  Scottish  followers  were  sung  in  London  streets. 
James  had  recommended  the  Union  to  Parliament  in  March  1604, 


500  ABORTIVE   SCHEME   OF    UNION. 

when  he  had  not  sat  for  a  year  on  the  English  throne.  Bodies  of 
commissioners  for  each  nation  were  appointed  in  the  summer  of  the 
year,  and  met  in  October,  at  Westminster,  while  James,  of  his  own 
will  and  fantasy,  crowned  himself  with  the  title  of  "  King  of  Great 
Britain."  "This  some  of  both  kingdoms  took  ill,"  says  Spottis- 
woode,  nor  did  the  Borderers  like  to  have  the  name  of  "  the 
Borders "  abolished,  with  all  the  old  Border  laws  (they  were 
printed,  after  the  Forty-Five,  by  a  bishop  of  Carlisle).  The 
garrisons  of  Berwick  and  Carlisle  were  dismissed,  orders  were  given 
to  destroy  the  Border  keeps,  and  turn  their  iron  gates  into  plough- 
shares.^ The  orders  cannot  have  been  carried  out,  to  judge  by  the 
numerous  keeps  and  fortalices  still  standing  on  either  side  of  the 
Marches. 

Meanwhile  Bacon  and  the  famed  Tam  o'  the  Cowgate,  the  King's 
Advocate  and  founder  of  the  Haddington  family,  drew  up  a  report 
for  the  Union  Commissioners.  The  articles  are  given  by  Spottis- 
woode.-  In  the  rules  for  free-trade  between  the  two  countries,  the 
staples  of  England — wool,  hides,  sheep,  cattle,  leather,  and  linen 
yarn — were  excepted,  and  the  rights  of  sea-fishing  were  to  remain 
restricted  as  of  yore.  Persons  in  each  country  born  after  James's 
accession  were  to  be  entitled  to  equal  privileges  of  all  kinds  on 
either  side  of  the  Border.  These  were  the  Post-nati ;  but  as  to  the 
Ante-nati,  persons  born  before  the  Union  of  the  Crowns,  great 
difficulties  arose,  as  the  Scots  who  followed  the  king  were  only  too 
likely,  by  the  kindly  Scottish  usage,  to  be  thrust  into  the  best 
English  posts  and  dignities.  James,  by  prerogative,  could 
naturalise  any  one,  and  even  give  him  office  under  the  Crown.  He 
declared,  however,  that  he  would  not  put  any  Scot  (not  yet  natural- 
ised) into  a  Crown  office,  nor  any  Englishman  into  a  Scottish 
Crown  office.  But  he  would  not  allow  his  power  of  doing  so  by 
prerogative  to  be  restricted  by  a  clause  in  the  Act.  The  English 
House  of  Commons  was  as  sceptical  about  the  king's  promise 
as  Mr  Robert  Bruce  had  been  about  his  statements  in  the 
Gowrie  case,  and  James's  promises,  when  at  home,  had  been 
punctually  broken.  In  November  21,  1606,  and  later,  strong 
commercial  opposition  to  the  scheme  of  Union  broke  forth,  and 
Bacon's  eloquence  in  favour  of  the  Bill  was  "in  the  right,  but  too 
soon."  Order  was  transgressed  by  indignant  and  sarcastic  English 
orators,  and  the  Scottish  Privy  Council,  when  they  heard  of  the 
insults,  protested  that  they,  for  their  part,  were  in  no  hurry  to  be 


THE   POST-NATI  (1608).  5OI 

blended  with  a  country  which  disdained  them.^  Finally,  nothing 
but  the  "  abolition  of  all  memory  of  hostility,  and  the  repression  of 
occasions  of  disorder,"  was  recorded.  Border  prisoners,  usually 
taken  on  charges  of  raiding  and  violence,  were  to  be  tried  in  their 
own  countries.  The  case  of  the  Post-nati  was  at  last  settled  by  a 
suit,  in  1608,  raised  in  the  name  of  Richard  Colvin,  a  child  born  in 
Scotland  the  third  year  of  James's  tenure  of  the  English  Crown. 
Bacon  argued  that,  to  prove  the  child  an  alien,  and  incapable  of 
holding  land,  say,  in  Shoreditch,  it  was  necessary  to  prove  that  he 
owned  allegiance  to  a  foreign  prince.  It  was  decided  that  Colvin 
and  all  Post-nati  were  natural-born  subjects  of  the  king  of  England, 
and  "enabled  to  purchase  and  have  freehold  and  inheritance  of 
lands  in  England,  and  to  bring  real  actions  for  the  same  in  Eng- 
land." The  case  fills  nearly  four  hundred  columns  in  the  State 
Trials.*  The  Chancellor  and  twelve  judges  decided  this  matter  by 
a  majority  of  eleven  to  two  votes. 

A  topic  of  keen  interest  to  the  politicians  of  the  daj',  but  of  little 
moment  in  national  history,  was  the  affair  of  Balmerino.  This 
gentleman,  originally  known  as  James  Elphinstone  of  Innernauchty, 
and  after  1604  as  Lord  Balmerino,  had  become  a  judge  in  1587, 
and  was  one  of  the  Board  of  Treasury  Control  styled  "  the  Octa- 
vians  "  in  the  agitated  year  1596.  In  1598  he  was  made  Secretary, 
holding  the  important  post  so  long  possessed  by  Maitland  of  Leth- 
ington.  In  1598  and  1599,  as  we  have  already  seen,  there  were 
some  tentative  traffickings  between  James  and  Rome,  and  a  letter 
signed  by  James,  and  addressing  the  Pope  as  "  Father,"  "  blessed," 
and  so  on,  arrived  at  the  hands  of  his  Holiness.  In  September 
1608  a  summons  to  England  reached  Balmerino,  and  this  presaged 
the  close  of  his  career  in  disgrace.  The  cause  was  this — James, 
ever  since  1604,  had  been,  reluctantly  or  not,  a  persecutor  of 
Puritans,  Presbyterians,  and  Catholics.  Nobody  was  to  dwell  in 
his  realm,  as  he  had  previously  said,  who  was  not  of  his  own 
religion  or  religions — Anglican  in  England,  and,  in  Scotland,  the 
Presbyterianism  of  an  auto-pope,  if  the  term  may  be  allowed. 
James  was  not  content  with  edicts.  In  1607  he  produced  an  anti- 
papal  work,"Triplici  Nodo,  Triplex  Cuneus,"  defending  the  oaths  of 
allegiance  to  himself  against  Paul  V.  and  Cardinal  Bellarmine.  The 
Cardinal,  writing  as  "  Matthaeus  Tortus,"  replied  in  1608.  James 
was  rebuked  for  his  religious  veerings,  and  especially  for  having  long 
ago  written  a  polite  letter  to  the  Pope,  Clement  VIII.,  and  another  to 


502  FALL   OF   BALMERTNO. 

Cardinal  Bellarmine,  asking  that  a  hat  might  be  given  to  his  subject, 
Chisholme,  Bishop  of  Vaison.  At  that  time  (159S-99)  the  exist- 
ence of  a  Scottish  cardinal,  to  reply  to  the  attacks  of  English 
Catholic  supporters  of  the  Infanta,  would  have  been  useful  to  James. 
He  was  never  a  true-blue  Protestant.  He  did  not  think  that  the 
Pope  was  the  Beast ;  and  he  revered  as  his  mother  Church  the 
Church  of  Rome.  He  did  not  regard  her  as  the  Scarlet  Woman 
sitting  on  the  Seven  Hills,  "as  if  ane,"  quoth  Andrew  Fairservice, 
"was  na  braid  eneugh  for  her  auld  hurdies."  But,  since  1605,  the 
Gunpowder  Plot,  and  the  need  of  some  victim  to  throw  to  the 
preachers,  had  modified  the  very  proper  and  historically  correct 
sentiments  of  the  king.  Now  Cardinal  Bellmarine  recalled  the 
polite  letter  of  James  to  the  Pope,  in  his  book  replying  to  the 
"  Triplex  Cuneus."  Balmerino,  then  Elphinstone,  had  been  Secretary 
in  1598,  and  Balmerino  was  called  to  court  to  explain  how  the 
polite  letter,  signed  by  James,  had  been  sent  to  the  pontiff. 

Balmerino  met  James,  Archbishop  Spottiswoode,  Dunbar,  and 
other  important  Scottish  officials,  at  Royston.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Spottiswoode  was  intriguing  against  the  secular  influence  of 
Balmerino.  That  statesman,  after  his  disgrace,  left  a  private 
memoir  with  his  own  account  of  the  whole  affair.  The  gist  may  be 
given  in  his  own  words,  "  A  plot  is  secretly  contrived  that  I  shall  be 
brought  to  a  confession  [oral]  of  it,"  (that  is,  of  fraudulently  inducing 
James  to  sign  a  letter  to  the  Pope  written  by  Elphinston)  "  his 
majesty  to  disallow  it  .  .  .  and  consequently,  my  undoing."^ 
Balmerino  denied  that,  in  this  letter,  James  had  promised  either  to 
turn  Catholic  (as  the  report  went)  or,  when  King  of  England,  to 
tolerate  Catholics.  Here  he  told  the  truth,  as  the  Pope's  reply  to 
the  letter  attributed  to  James  suffices  to  prove.  But  Balmerino 
confessed  the  part  as  to  procuring  a  cardinal's  hat  for  a  Scottish 
subject.  Sir  Alexander  Hay  (who  had  been  appointed  his  adjunct 
in  the  Scottish  secretaryship)  induced  him  to  confess  this 
much,  "the  simple  truth."  Balmerino  admitted  that  he  himself 
had  written,  or  caused  Sir  Edward  Drummond  to  write,  the 
ordinary  forms  of  address.  Pater,  and  so  forth,  into  the  letter 
which,  in  1598,  James  had  signed.  Sir  Alexander  Hay  was  a 
witness  of  a  repetition  of  this  confession.  Balmerino  was  then 
ordered  under  arrest,  though  he  was  unaware  of  it,  and  was 
told  to  make  his  confession  in  writing.  He  now  realised  that  his 
ruin  was  intended — he  had  thought  that  his  previous  oral  admis- 


CONFESSIONS   OF   BALMERINO.  503 

sions  were  only  for  the  king's  private  satisfaction.  He  asked  for 
delay,  and  for  time  to  procure  the  evidence  of  Sir  Edward  Drummond, 
who  had  been  with  him  in  1598.  Balmerino  was  next  examined 
before  the  English  Privy  Council,  just  as  Andrew  Melville  had 
been.  He  extracted  from  them  the  admission  that  they  could  not 
judge  him,  that  he  must  be  tried  before  '■  his  ordinary  judge." 
They  could  not  entangle  him,  he  says,  and  Lord  Balfour  ot 
Burleigh  was  sent  to  him  to  advise  a  confession  entirely  exculpating 
the  king,  with  assurance  that  his  life  and  estate  should  not  be 
imperilled.  Balmerino  tried,  meanwhile,  to  make  terms  with 
Dunbar.  "  If  he  desired  Restalrig,  he  should  have  it  for  the  price 
I  bought  it."  In  fact,  Balmerino  had  bought  Restalrig  from  the 
impoverished  Logan  in  1605  ;  and,  when  Logan  died  in  July  1606, 
Balmerino  still  owed  eighteen  thousand  marks  of  the  price,  as 
appears  from  Logan's  will.  Dunbar  himself  also  owed  to  Logan's 
estate  fifteen  thousand  marks  of  the  purchase  money  of  the 
property  of  Flemington,  which  he  escaped  paying,  through  the 
forfeiture  of  Logan's  heir  in  1609.^  Dunbar  was  apparently  pleased 
by  Balmerino's  offers,  and  Balmerino  thought  that  his  life  and 
lands  were  now  secure  if  he  exonerated  James  from  the  letter  to 
the  Pope.  Consequently  he  "put  himself  in  James's  will,"  that  is. 
would  not  defend  himself.  He  declared  that  the  Latin  letter  to  the 
Pope  was  placed,  among  others,  before  James,  that  the  king  signed 
the  heap,  and  that  Drummond  wrote  in  terms  of  address  to  the  Pope 
as  Pater,  and  the  rest,  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  epistle. 
Balmerino  also  confessed  that,  to  the  ambassador  of  Elizabeth,  he 
had  denied  all  the  facts,  and  had  made  Drummond  corroborate  his 
denial.  Ehzabeth  had  probably  learned  the  truth  through  the 
Master  of  Gray,  who  corresponded  both  with  Cecil  and  with  the 
Roman  court,  as  we  have  already  shown  (p.  440). 

Having  secured  these  formal  confessions  from  Balmerino,  Salis- 
bury (Robert  Cecil)  made  them  the  basis  of  a  charge  of  high  treason, 
also  of  forgery  of  James's  handwriting.  Balmerino  was  wheedled 
into  signing  this  document  charging  him  with  treason  on  the  under- 
standing that  it  was  merely  for  the  king's  personal  satisfaction. 
Being  arraigned  before,  and  scolded  by  the  Council,  he  was  again 
persuaded  not  to  defend  himself  James  is  said  to  have  been 
skulking  behind  the  arras,  or  in  some  Ear  of  Dionysius,  while  his 
English  sycophants  railed  at  his  Scottish  minister.  Balmerino  was 
removed  from  the  Council  and   "warded"  at   Falkland.      He  was 


504  CONSECRATION   OF   BISHOPS  (1610). 

then  tried  and  convicted,  merely  on  his  own  confession,  at  St 
Andrews,  still  abstaining  from  self-defence,  in  the  king's  interest, 
and  in  the  behef  that  his  life  and  lands  were  secure.  But  he  was 
kept  in  close  captivity,  through  the  treachery  of  Dunbar  and  Sir 
Alexander  Hay,  "As  for  others  of  our  nation  who  have  little  regard 
wherefore  I  suffer  at  Englishmen's  hands,  God  forgive  them ! " 
His  country,  he  says,  is  "  miserable,  coming  in  a  vile  servitude,  the 
foresight  whereof  is  all  my  wrack."  Thus,  in  Balmerino's  opinion, 
he  was  put  at  by  Spottiswoode  and  Dunbar,  because  he  was  too 
good  a  "  Scottisman,"  and  opposed  the  "  servitude  "  of  his  country. 
Balmerino  died  in  1612.''' 

Sir  Alexander  Hay,  the  blackest  of  traitors  except  Dunbar, 
if  we  accept  Balmerino's  view,  was  now  left  alone  in  the  Scottish 
secretaryship.  For  a  considerable  time  there  is  nothing  of  interest 
to  record  in  domestic  affairs,  setting  aside  the  reduction  of  the 
Borders  and  the  Highlands.  There  were  official  changes  and 
experiments  in  the  control  of  finance,  and  Mr  Archibald  Primrose, 
writer,  with  his  son  James,  now  clerk  of  the  Council,  became  men 
of  official  importance.^  The  death  of  Dunbar  (January  29,  161 1) 
caused  many  shiftings  in  State  offices,  and  Calderwood  fires  the 
salute  of  a  most  unseemly  scandal  over  the  dead  statesman's  grave. 
Dunbar  was,  perhaps,  rather  more  unscrupulous  than  most  public 
men  of  his  age,  but  he  was  a  person  of  great  energy  and  of  con- 
ciliatory manners.  It  seems  certain  that  he  much  disliked  the 
policy  towards  the  Kirk  with  which  he  was  entrusted.  Cranstoun, 
now  Lord  Cranstoun,  succeeded  him  in  his  Border  lieutenancy ; 
the  treasurership  was  practically  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  com- 
mission of  eight,  "  the  New  Octavians,"  with  Dunfermline  for 
chief,  and  Lord  Advocate  Hamilton  for  one  of  the  members. 
Cranstoun  was  succeeded  in  the  Border  lieutenancy  by  Ker  of 
Ancrum  :  the  new  favourite  of  James — (Ker,  later  Rochester,  later 
Somerset),  being  supposed  to  have  influenced  the  royal  choice. 
After  a  series  of  changes  the  King's  Advocate  became  Secretary  of 
State,  and  Sir  Alexander  Hay,  Clerk  Register,  The  only  great 
noble  of  position  in  James's  administration  was  the  young  Marquis 
of  Hamilton,  of  the  third  generation  from  the  Duke  of  Chatelherault 
of  Queen  Mary's  reign.^ 

It  was  in  1610  that  James  crowned  his  prelatical  edifice  by 
having  Spottiswoode  and  two  bishops  consecrated  by  three  English 
bishops  (York  and  Canterbury  being  excluded).     The  consecrated 


REFORMS   OF   ADMINISTRATION.  505 

three  could  now  pass  on  any  apostolical  virtue  which  Anglican 
bishops  are  able  to  confer  to  their  brethren  in  Scotland.  These 
were  no  longer  mere  parliamentary  officials,  but  bishops  with  as 
much  mystical  quality  as  Scotland  could  desire  or  dislike.  Oc- 
casionally a  minister  who  preached  in  a  semblance  of  the  old  tone 
was  put  at;  but  between  banishments,  imprisonments,  and  other 
inflictions,  the  watchmen  of  the  Kirk  were  practically  reduced  to 
silence — the  hearts  of  such  as  Calderwood  burning  within  them. 

In  the  matter  of  public  order  James  took  a  lesson  from  England, 
and,  in  16 10,  appointed  a  number  of  Commissioners  or  Justices  of 
the  Peace, — "  godly,  wise,  and  virtuous  gentlemen,  of  good  quality, 
estate,  and  repute."  ^°  Their  duties  were  much  what  they  so  long 
continued  to  be,  they  were  coiinty  magistrates  having  constables 
under  them.  The  Selkirkshire  justices  complain  of  the  unruliness 
of  the  town,  the  want  of  money,  the  depression  in  sheep-farming, 
the  numbers  of  sturdy  men  who  will  not  work,  and  of  willing 
workers  for  whom  there  is  no  employment.  They  suggest  the 
making  of  public  roads. ^'^  The  system,  though  opposed  now  by 
the  towns,  now  by  the  recalcitrant  gentry,  struck  root,  though  the 
constabulary  was  scanty  and  probably  as  inefficient  as  that  of  Dog- 
berry. Meanwhile  the  settlement  of  Ulster  by  Scottish  immigrants 
was  being  worked  out,  though  the  enterprisers  were  obviously,  from 
their  names  and  ranks,  but  a  feeble  folk,  with  more  speculative  ten- 
dency than  capital.  In  16  ri  the  lists  of  enterprisers  contain  nobler 
names.  The  house  of  Ochiltree  (the  house  of  the  daring  captain  who 
overthrew  Morton,  and  of  the  bride  of  Knox),  with  the  Abercorn 
Hamiltons,  emigrated  to  Ulster.  Among  other  noted  names  of  ad- 
venturers whose  families  did  not  emigrate  are  those  of  Lennox, 
Balfour  of  Burleigh,  Stewart  of  Minto,  and  Murray  of  Broughton, 
while  Andrew  Knox,  that  warlike  preacher  and  prelate,  became 
Bishop  of  Raphoe.  As  the  settlers  brought  over  hosts  of  their  work- 
men and  dependants,  Ulster  rapidly  became  sufficiently  Scotticised. 

The  year  161 2  was  clearly  marked  by  nature  as  portentous. 
•"  A  cow  brought  forth  fourteen  great  dog  whelps  instead  of  calves," 
a  circumstance  inexplicable  to  the  naturalist.  Another  cow 
expired  in  giving  birth  to  a  human  infant,  which  did  not  survive, 
and  a  third  cow's  calf  had  two  heads.^^  These  things  do  not  occur 
without  some  mysterious  reason,  but  nothing  very  remarkable 
happened  till  the  Parliament  in  October,  which  ratified  the  Acts  of 
the  Episcopalian   General  Assembly  of  16 10,  without  retaining  the 


506  PERSECUTION   OF   CATHOLICS   (1613). 

subjection  of  bishops  to  General  Assemblies.  The  old  "caveats" 
dropped  out  of  view,  and  it  may  be  taken  as  the  orthodox  Presby- 
terian theory  that  the  bishops  never  had  a  really  legal  existence. ^^ 
They  remained,  it  will  be  found,  subject  to  excommunication  by  a 
General  Assembly,  as  soon  as  the  political  condition  of  the  country 
gave  a  General  Assembly  freedom  of  action.  The  death  of  the 
heir  to  the  throne,  Prince  Henry,  on  November  6,  was  the  heaviest 
stroke  in  that  kind  since  the  death  of  the  Maid  of  Norway.  Like 
all  young  and  handsome  princes  who  perish  in  their  bloom,  he  was 
reckoned  of  great  promise.  That  promise  may  have  been  illusive, 
but,  from  what  is  known  of  him,  it  seems  that  he  would  not,  at 
least,  have  entered  the  path  of  his  unhappy  brother,  the  Prince 
Charles.  The  marriage  of  the  hardly  more  fortunate  Princess 
Elizabeth  was  celebrated  on  February  14,  16 13.  This  year,  with 
those  which  followed,  was  remarkable  for  turbulence  in  the  islands, 
and  in  the  Orkneys,  but  is  more  noted  in  the  home  districts  for 
persecution  of  Catholics.  For  three  years,  as  Dr  Masson  says, 
"  there  was  a  kind  of  frenzied  run  upon  persecution."  If  the  object 
was  to  please  the  Presbyterians  of  the  old  school  the  measures 
were  unsuccessful ;  in-  the  violence  of  the  bishops  they  only  saw 
Satan  divided  against  himself.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Kirk 
Episcopal  was  given  the  reins  more  freely  than  the  Kirk  Presby- 
terian as  to  persecution,  and  yet  was  deemed  infinitely  too  lenient 
by  good  Presbyterians  like  Calderwood. 

As  instances  of  Catholic  sufferers  we  find,  first,  a  Logan  of  Restal- 
rig.  Robert  Logan  of  Restalrig,  that  genial  ruffian,  and  suspected 
Gowrie  conspirator,  seems  to  have  had  leanings  both  towards  Rome 
and  Gei^eva.  The  truth  apparently  was  that  whether  a  Kirkman  or  a 
Catholic  was  engaged  in  any  desperate  or  lawless  act,  whether  godly 
Mr  Bruce,  or  Bothwell,  or  George  Ker  was  in  a  strait,  Logan  was 
equally  ready  to  lend  them  the  shelter  of  Fastcastle,  or  offer  them 
the  "  fine  hattit  kits  "  of  Restalrig.  It  may  have  been  a  son  of  his 
who,  in  the  year  of  the  Logan  forfeiture  for  the  Gowrie  Plot  (1609), 
appears  as  John  Logan,  portioner  of  Restalrig,  accused  of  attending 
mass  celebrated  by  John  Burd,  priest.  He  w^as  tried  for  this 
offence  in  161 3,  and  was  fined  ^tooo  Scots,  though  he  had 
repented  and  become  an  elder  of  the  Kirk.^'^  Even  the  old 
Countess  of  Sutherland,  the  wife  of  the  famous  Bothwell  of  Queen 
Mary,  was  harried  for  her  religious  opinions,  and  shut  up  with  Mr 
Robert  Bruce  in  Inverness.     The  most  celebrated  victim  in  these 


I 


MARTYRDOM   OF   FATHER   OGILVIE.  507 

persecutions  was  Father  Ogilvie,  S.J.  His  case  proves  that  the 
high  Presbyterians'  theory  of  Church  and  State  came  perilously  near 
to  that  of  their  most  detested  opponents  of  the  old  faith.  Ogilvie 
entered  Scotland,  disguised  as  a  soldier,  in  16 13.  He  had  two 
companions  :  one,  Father  Moffat,  gained  a  rich  harvest  of  souls  in 
St  Andrews ;  the  other,  Father  Campbell,  laboured  in  Edinburgh, 
whither  Father  Ogilvie  later  came.  He  ministered  to  the  spiritual 
needs  of  Sir  James  Macdonald  (Macsorley,  cf.  p.  435),  who  was 
still  a  prisoner  in  the  Castle.  In  August  16 14  Ogilvie  ventured 
to  Glasgow,  the  seat  of  Archbishop  Spottiswoode.  About  October  5 
he  was  arrested,  being  betrayed  by  a  false  convert,  rich,  and  of 
good  family.  Spottiswoode,  after  the  arrest,  struck  the  prisoner ;  the 
standers-by  fell  on  Ogilvie,  beat  him,  and  stripped  him.  This  fact 
is  given  by  Father  Forbes  Leith  as  part  of  Ogilvie's  own  narrative. -^^ 

The  abominable  story  of  Spottiswoode's  blow  is  corroborated  by 
Calderwood  :  "the  bishop  buffeted  him."'^  Against  a  priest  and  a 
prisoner  the  prelate  was  more  fierce  than  Andrew  Melville  against  a 
king.  Spottiswoode  himself  does  not  mention  the  circumstance. 
But  he  did  write  to  James  recommending  that  Ogilvie  should  be 
tortured  by  the  boots,  and  asking  for  the  half  of  ajiy  fines  that  might 
be  inflicted.^''  Spottiswoode  wrote  thus  on  October  5,  and  an  inquest 
as  to  Ogilvie  was  held  on  the  same  day.  Spottiswoode  expressed 
his  irritation  against  the  negligence  of  the  ministers  which  favoured 
Popery,  and  he  anticipated,  or  affected  to  anticipate,  a  plot  against 
the  life  of  the  king.  He  still  (November  12,  16 14)  insisted  on  the 
need  of  torture.^^  Yet  the  enthusiastic  Calderwood  regards  the 
dealings  against  Catholics  as  "  counterfeit."  Some  fourteen  Glasgow 
people  were  tried  in  December  for  hearing  mass,  and  the  report 
ran  that  they  were  to  be  executed,  "  but  they  were  in  no  danger." 
In  modern  controversy  some  Presbyterian  writers  argue  that  the 
Episcopalians  were  the  real  persecutors.  They  were  bad  enough, 
but  they  could  not  satisfy  Calderwood  and  people  of  his  stamp. 

In  December  Ogilvie  was  taken  to  Spottiswoode's  house  in 
Edinburgh.  "  Mud,  snow,  and  curses  "  were  hurled  at  him  as  he 
rode,  and  a  woman  cursed  his  ugly  face.  "  The  blessing  of  Christ 
on  your  bonny  face  ! "  replied  the  gallant  Jesuit,  whereon  the  woman 
apologized.  At  Spottiswoode's  house  he  was  threatened  with  the 
boots  and  cross-examined  on  many  matters.  He  would  not  give  up 
the  names  of  his  friends  or  converts.  As  even  James  did  not 
approve  of  ordinary  torture,  these  cruel  parsons  kept  the  good  father 


508  MARTYRDOM    OF   OGILVIE   (1614-1615). 

awake  for  eight  days  and  nine  consecutive  nights,  as  they  were  wont 
to  do  with  witches.  They  pinched  him,  and  ran  pins  and  needles 
into  his  flesh.  Calderwood  says  that  "  his  brains  became  hghtsome." 
He  himself  declares  that  he  scarce  knew  what  he  said  or  did,  or  in 
what  city  he  was.  Nothing  could  be  extracted  from  him  (the 
official  account  says  that  he  gave  up  some  names)  either  by  cruelty 
or  offer  of  reward.  Moffat,  another  Jesuit,  was  tempted  with  "  the 
Abbey  of  Coldingham,  which  .  .  .  still  retains  its  leaden  roof." 
As  a  rule  that  last  poor  plunder  of  a  ruined  church  had  been 
stripped  off  and  sold  long  ago. 

Just  before  Christmas,  16 14,  Ogilvie  was  taken  back  to  Glasgow, 
and  fettered  to  an  iron  pole.  Spottiswoode  and  others  received  a 
commission  to  ask  Ogilvie  questions  about  the  royal  supremacy  and 
the  Pope's  claims  to  jurisdiction.  He  maintained  (says  the  official 
account)  that  the  Pope  was  supreme  over  the  king  in  spiritual  matters, 
and  has  power  to  excommunicate  the  king,  just  as  (according  to  some 
authorities)  the  General  Assembly  had.  As  to  whether  the  Pope 
could  depose  the  king,  Ogilvie  refused  to  answer,  nor  would  he  say 
whether  it  was  lawful  to  slay  an  excommunicated  prince.  He  was 
tried,  on  these  replies,  before  the  provost,  bailies,  Spottiswoode,  and 
some  nobles,  on  February  28,  1 61 5.  The  charge  was,  not  that  of  say- 
ing mass,  nor  anything  that  could  "touch  him  in  conscience  properly," 
but  "  for  declining  his  majesty's  authority."  He  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge the  jurisdiction,  or  to  admit  that  his  opinions  were  treasonable 
He  bearded  the  court:  his  ideas,  he  said,  as  regards  royal  supremacy 
in  spiritual  matters  were  those  "  of  the  best  ministers  of  the  land, 
and  if  they  be  wise,  they  will  continue  so."  The  Jesuit  agreed  with 
those  enemies  of  the  Kirk  who  called  it  Jesuitical.  A  council  of 
the  Church,  he  said,  had  not  determined  the  point  as  to  whether 
excommunicated  princes  might  be  killed.  On  this  point  Knox  and 
other  preachers,  had  shown  a  hankering  after  some  privileged  Jehu, 
to  slay  tyrannical  princes.  Ogilvie  was  convicted — there  was  no  help 
for  it — and  was  hanged.  The  official  account  does  not  say  what 
Father  James  Brown,  S.J.,  does  say,  that  a  preacher  was  com- 
missioned to  offer  Ogilvie,  aloud  and  publicly,  life,  the  hand  of  Miss 
Spottiswoode,  and  a  very  rich  prebend,  if  he  would  turn  Presbyterian 
(Douay,  February  23,  1672).  Father  Brown  was  rector  of  Douay 
in  1688.  He  must  have  told  this  legend  on  the  strength  of  tradi- 
tion derived  from  his  father,  who,  it  seems,  like  Crito  in  the  case  of 
Socrates,  had  tried   to  induce  Ogilvie  to  break   prison.     A  public 


' 


JESUITS   AND   SAINTS.  509 

offer  of  the  hand  of  the  Archbishop's  daughter  could  scarcely  have 
been  omitted  by  Calderwood,  who  must  have  seen  the  archiepiscopal 
absurdity.     The  anecdote  is  cited  by  Father  Forbes  Leith.^^ 

An  effort  was  made  to  prove  that  Ogilvie  did  not  die  for  his  religion, 
but  for  his  politics.  In  fact,  had  an  atheist,  or  a  Presbyterian,  or  an 
Anglican,  gone  about  teaching,  and  declined  to  say  whether  or 
not  the  king  might,  in  any  circumstances  whatever,  be  lawfully  slain, 
he  would  have  been  hanged.  Knox,  with  his  prayers  for  a  Phineas, 
was  exactly  in  Ogilvie's  position.  Religion  had  caused  too  many 
murders  of  eminent  victims  ;  too  many  hot  heads  were  ready  to  act 
on  the  doctrine  which  Father  Ogilvie  refused  to  disclaim.  Ap- 
parently he  might,  without  dishonour,  have  disclaimed  it,  as  no 
council  had  pronounced  on  the  subject.  He  deserves  our  sympathy, 
like  other  brave  men  of  all  creeds,  but  his  ideas  could  not  be 
endured.  Calderwood  says  that  some  took  the  hanging  of  Ogilvie 
as  done  "  to  be  a  terror  to  the  sincerer  sort  of  ministers  not  to 
decline  the  king's  authority  in  any  cause  whatsoever."  He  was  the 
second  priest  or  Jesuit  that  was  executed  since  the  bastard  Arch- 
bishop of  Glasgow  was  hanged,-*^  for  Buchanan  speaks  of  a  priest 
who  was  hanged  for  his  religion — the  very  priest  who,  on  evidence 
received  under  seal  of  confession,  accused  Archbishop  Hamilton  of 
Darnley's  murder.-^ 

It  must,  in  fairness,  be  said  for  the  ruling  classes  of  Protestant 
Scotland,  that  they,  in  opposition  to  the  preachers,  laboriously 
avoided  carrying  religious  persecution  to  the  death  penalty.  It  was 
the  error  of  James  that  in  ecclesiastical  matters  he  could  not  obey 
the  proverb,  "  Let  sleeping  dogs  lie."  He  was  determined  that 
nobody  should  live  in  the  realm  who  was  not  of  the  same  religion 
as  himself,  and  his  majesty's  religion  was  a  thing  of  rapid  develop- 
ment. He  now  reached  a  stage  of  fairly  high  Anglicanism  of  an 
ornate  kind.  This  he  began  to  force  upon  his  Scottish  subjects, 
who  liked  their  religion  bald  and  bleak.  Preachings  thrice  a  week 
(Tuesdays,  Thursdays,  and  Sundays),  very  rare  communion  services, 
not  much  music,  and  no  works  of  art  in  church  except  the  heraldic 
decorations  of  the  lairds'  pews,  recommended  themselves  to  the 
Scots.  The  communion  was  taken  sitting,  as  in  the  first  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  bread,  apparently,  was  broken  by  the 
communicants  as  they  passed  it  from  each  to  each.  The  purpose 
was  to  preserve  the  original  aspect  of  a  common  though  sacred  meal. 
Kneeling  was  deemed  to  imply  adoration  of  the  sacred  elements, 


510  GENERAL   ASSEMBLY   (1616). 

and  the  Scottish  communion  avoided  the  sacred  seasons  of  the 
old  faith,  such  as  Easter  and  Christmas. 

It  seemed  easy  for  James  to  leave  these  things  as  they  were. 
What  he  had  a  right  to  secure,  if  he  could,  was  immunity  from 
clerical  interference  with  the  State,  and  freedom  from  the  insults  of 
the  pulpit.  In  these  respects  he  had  now  no  ground  of  complaint. 
His  two  "  Courts  of  High  Commission "  (the  name  being  of  evil 
association  in  England)  had  been  set  up  in  16 10,  had  enforced 
ecclesiastical  and  moral  discipline,  and  in  161 5  had  been  con- 
solidated into  one  court.  In  the  same  year,  in  June,  the  death  of 
Archbishop  Gledstanes  left  St  Andrews  and  the  primacy  of  Scotland 
open  to  Spottiswoode,  who  preached  himself  in  on  August  5  and  6. 
Law  succeeded  him  in  Glasgow  ;  Graham,  of  Dunblane,  took  the 
Orkneys;  and  Bannatyne,  once  a  foul-mouthed  opponent  of  bishops, 
obtained  the  see  of  Dunblane.^^  In  August  16 16  a  General 
Assembly  was  held  at  Aberdeen.  This  was  thought  to  be  for  the 
conveniency  of  the  northern  and  less  precise  preachers,  but  we  have 
already  seen  that  the  north  could  boast  her  precisians  at  Nig  and 
elsewhere.  They  were  much  offended  by  the  novelty  of  the  D.D. 
degree  conferred  at  St  Andrews  on  the  Principals  of  St  Leonard's, 
St  Salvator's,  and  St  Mary's,  with  other  ministers  ;  this  prejudice 
against  the  degree  has  long  been  obsolete.-^ 

The  Assembly  was  directed  by  the  king  to  take  strong  measures 
against  Popery,  a  step  which  never  did  conciliate  the  remnant  of  the 
old  leaven,  who  thought  Episcopal  persecutions  of  Catholics  a  mere 
farce.  Spottiswoode  was  moderator,  not  by  free  election,  and  neither 
the  ministers  nor  the  nobles,  "  with  silks  and  satins,"  were  regarded 
as  having  "  lawful  commission  to  vote."  Time  was  protracted  in 
treating  of  penalties  against  Papists  to  weary  the  faithful  from  the 
south.  Such  Assemblies  were  not  regarded  by  the  Presbyterians  of 
the  old  stamp  as  legal  and  binding.  Family  prayers  were  imposed 
on  all,  "  and  that  the  minister  of  every  parish  haunt  their  houses  to 
see  the  same  observed,"  so  that  Scottish  Episcopacy  by  no  means 
meant  an  end  of  clerical  espiotinage.  The  name  "  Presbytery  "  was  not 
abolished  :  it  occurs  in  an  article  against  schoolmistresses.  Justices 
of  the  Peace  were  to  apprehend  people  who  made  pilgrimages  to  the 
holy  wells,  but  the  practice  is  not  extinct  yet  in  the  Highlands,  or 
even  in  the  Lowlands.  Ministers  were  to  detect  and  expose  minor 
poets,  "  songsters,  and  minstrels " ;  they,  too,  have  survived  these 
severities,  like  Scott's  hero  : — 


"A   MERE   HOTCH-POTCH."  51I 

The  bigots  of  the  iron  time 

Had  called  his  harmless  art  a  crime. 

There  was  some  dealing  with  Huntly,  who,  after  a  recent  excom- 
munication by  the  Kirk,  had  been  absolved  in  England  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury — a  bad  precedent.  "  He  did  it  of  brotherly 
affection,  and  not  as  claiming  any  superiority  over  the  Kirk  of 
Scotland."  A  new  Confession,  less  rigid  than  "  the  King's  Con- 
fession," was  submitted  to  the  Assembly.  Finally,  a  number  of  the 
southern  precisians  being  wearied  out,  royal  instructions  as  to  the 
discipline  and  policy  of  the  Kirk  were  rapidly  passed  in  a  thin  house. 
The  rigid  declared  that  they  could  not  speak  or  vote  freely,  "  having 
the  king's  guard  standing  behind  our  backs."  A  Catechism  called 
"  God  and  the  King  "  was  ordered  to  be  used  in  schools.^'*  Worse, 
a  Liturgy  was  to  be  read  in  common  prayer,  though  the  minister  was 
still  allowed  to  "  conceive  his  own  prayer "  afterwards.  The  com- 
munion was  to  be  celebrated  quarterly,  "  and  one  of  the  times  to  be 
Easter,"  a  festival  of  man's  invention,  and  having  no  certain  warranty 
in  Holy  Writ.  In  the  Confession  it  is  averred  that  "  the  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  are  truly  present  in  the  holy  supper,"  but  that 
"  we  participate  in  them  only  spiritually  and  by  faith,  not  carnally  or 
corporally,"  a  rather  delicate  distinction.  In  October  a  new 
outrage  occurred.  "  The  organs  which  were  to  be  set  up  in  the 
chapel  royal  were  brought  to  Leith."  The  Abbey  kirk  at  Holy- 
rood  and  the  chapel  royal  were  also  repaired  and  redecorated 
against  the  coming  of  the  king.^^ 

The  Acts  of  the  Assembly,  except  one  ordaining  the  confirmation 
of  the  young  by  bishops,  were,  his  majesty  said,  "  a  mere  hotch- 
potch " — "  hotch-potch  "  being  the  name  of  an  excellent  broth  of 
promiscuous  elements.  He  wished  that — (i)  the  communicants 
should  kneel,  not  sit;  (2)  that  the  communion  might  be  admin- 
istered to  the  dying  at  home ;  (3)  that  baptism  should  be  admin- 
istered on  the  first  Sunday  after  birth,  and,  if  necessary,  at  home 
(this  was  the  common  practice  in  Presbyterian  families  down  to 
very  recent  times) ;  (4)  that  the  chief  anniversaries,  such  as 
Christmas,  Easter,  Pentecost,  should  be  observed  ;  (5)  confirmation 
and  instruction  were  insisted  upon.  Spottiswoode  remonstrated  : 
it  would  be  difficult  to  get  these  articles  admitted. 

James,  therefore,  deferred  them  till  his  own  visit  to  his  native 
country.  His  "salmon-like  instinct,"  he  said,  had  long  made  him 
wish  to  see  his  own  country.     There  his  loyal  subjects  supposed 


512  THE   KING  VISITS   SCOTLAND   (1617). 

that  he  had  pardoned  Somerset  for  the  murder  of  Overbury,  because 
Somerset  had  been  privy  to  the  poisoning  of  Prince  Henry  !  This 
is  reported  by  Calderwood  :  it  is  only  one  example  of  the  charity  of 
Scottish  opinion.-^  A  man  who  would  have  gilded  figures  of  the 
apostles  set  up  in  the  royal  chapel  (and  that  was  James's  intention) 
was  capable  of  anything.  First,  an  organ;  then  images;  then  murder, 
then  the  mass  !  The  images  were  the  substance  of  remonstrance  by 
the  bishops,  whom  James  answered  angrily  (March  13,  16 17).  He 
did  not  erect  the  figures,  but  merely  because  there  was  not  time 
enough  to  have  the  work  well  done.  The  bishops'  ignorance 
amazed  James.  They  did  not  object  to  figures  of  "  lions, 
dragons,  and  devils,"  only  to  those  of  patriarchs  and  apostles.-'^ 

The  visit  of  James,  with  the  preparations  of  every  kind  for  a 
retinue  of  5000  persons,  perturbed  Scotland.  Beggars  were  to  be 
driven  out  of  Edinburgh,  game  was  to  be  preserved,  ruins  were  to 
be  pulled  down,  new  dwellings  erected,  and  all  this  would  have  been 
good  for  business  if  tradesmen  could  have  cherished  a  confident 
hope  of  being  paid.     On  this  point  they  were  gravely  sceptical. 

The  king  crossed  the  Tweed  on  May  13,  161 7.  Space  does  not 
serve  for  a  minute  account  of  the  royal  progress.^  Bacon  came, 
and  Lennox,  Arundel,  and  Shakespeare's  Southampton,  William 
Herbert,  Earl  of  Pembroke,  and  the  young  favourite,  Villiers,  Earl 
of  Buckingham,  and,  among  other  divines,  Dr  William  Laud,  like 
the  evil  fairy  at  the  christening,  like  Discord  at  the  banquet  of 
the  Olympians.  On  Friday,  May  16,  James  entered  Edinburgh. 
The  pageants  and  pedantries  were  of  the  usual  kind.  James  made 
for  Falkland  and  Dundee,  and  his  old  hunting  grounds,  and  every 
palace  spoke  to  him  of  raids  by  Bothwell  or  Gowrie,  of  imprison- 
ment and  escape.  At  Holyrood  he  may  have  slept  in  a  bed  of  gold 
and  silver  work,  wrought  by  his  mother's  hand  :  he  must  have  held 
court  in  the  rooms  that  had  reeked  with  the  blood  of  Riccio.  After 
a  stately  visit  to  Morton  at  Dalkeith,  Parliament  was  "  ridden  "  on 
June  1 7,  and  the  holding  of  Parliament  in  a  prison  (the  Tolbooth) 
may  have  surprised  the  English  visitors. 

The     most     important     fact     in     James's     visit     to     Scotland 
was    his    dealing   with    the    Kirk.      He    had    promised    to    make 
no  alterations ;  publicly  he    had   promised,  privately  he  had    told 
Spottiswoode  that  he  would  clarify  the  hotch-potch  of  the  Assemh' 
of  Aberdeen  in  1616.     He  began  by  making  the  Council  kne 
the  sacrament  in  the  royal  chapel.      Laud  wore  a  surplice  at' 


INNOVATIONS   IN   WORSHIP.  513 

burial  of  one  of  the  Guards — that  harmless-looking  surplice  which 
has  an  effect  so  maddening  on  many  minds.  In  the  Parliament 
discontent  was  shown.  James's  list  of  Lords  of  the  Articles  was 
not  accepted.  The  very  first  article  ran,  "  That  whatsoever  conclu- 
sion was  taken  by  his  majesty  with  advice  of  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  in  matters  of  external  police,  the  same  should  have  the 
power  and  strength  of  an  ecclesiastical  law."  The  very  bishops 
themselves  said  that  "  advice  and  consent  of  presbyters "  were 
necessary,  so  "  a  competent  number  of  the  ministry "  was  added 
in  a  new  clause.  The  preachers  began  to  agitate.  One  Struthers 
prayed  God  to  save  Scotland  from  Anglican  rites.  On  June  27 
fifty-five  preachers  signed  a  protest  against  the  practical  abolition  of 
the  powers  of  the  General  Assembly.  The  signatures  did  not  come 
to  James's  hands,  but  the  protest  did.  His  INIajesty,  hearing  a 
dispute  outside  his  dressing-room  door,  rushed  forth,  in  an  unaffected 
costume,  and  found  Spottiswoode  squabbling  with  Hewat,  who  had 
the  copy  of  the  protest.  The  leaders,  repenting,  had  asked  Spottis- 
woode not  to  let  it  reach  James,  but  Hewat  was  for  presenting  it. 
James  looked  at  the  paper,  asked  where  the  signatures  were,  and 
then  in  Parliament  caused  the  article  protested  against  to  be 
dropped.-^  But  that  night  James  summoned  the  most  noted 
preachers  to  meet  him,  on  July  13,  in  the  castle  chapel  of  St 
Andrews,  now  scarcely  traceable  among  the  ruins.  Spottiswoode 
gives  the  king's  speech  on  this  occasion.  He  asked  why  his 
five  points,  as  to  kneeling  at  the  communion  and  the  rest,  had 
not  been  accepted  by  last  year's  Assembly  at  Aberdeen,  Again, 
they  had  "  mutinously  "  protested  against  the  first  article  in  the 
June  Parliament  at  Edinburgh.  What,  he  demanded,  were  their 
scruples,  what  their  reasons  ?  The  preachers  asked  leave  to  with- 
draw and  discuss,  which  they  did  in  the  Town  Kirk  in  South  Street. 
They  then  asked  that  a  General  Assembly  might  first  consider  the 
king's  new  articles.  Patrick  Galloway  is  said,  by  Spottiswoode,  to 
have  offered  his  assurance  that  the  Assembly  would  be  obedient, 
and  an  Assembly  was  fi.xed  for  November  25  at  St  Andrews.^*' 

The  High  Commission  also  sat,  and  Calderwood,  the  historian, 
was  called  before  it.  He  was  now  a  man  of  forty-two,  and  he  played 
the  part  of  Andrew  Melville  and  his  other  heroes.  The  charge  was 
that  he  kept  the  protest  of  the  ministers  drawn  up  in  June  with  all 
the  signatures.  He  said  that  he  had  given  the  roll  to  Andrew 
Simpson,  another  preacher,  then  warded  in  Edinburgh  Castle.     He 

VOL.   II.  2   K 


514  CALDERWOOD   IN   TROUBLE. 

was  next  accused  of  attending  the  "  mutinous "  meeting  of  the 
protesters.  The  dispute  raged  between  James  and  Calderwood  as 
to  the  power  of  the  Assembly  "to  make  canons  and  constitutions 
of  all  rites  and  orders  belonging  to  Kirk  polity."  There  was  much 
wrangling  on  minute  technical  points,  personal  to  Calderwood's 
own  position,  for  he  had  been  under  a  kind  of  ecclesiastical  arrest. 
There  was  a  confused  scene,  several  people  speaking  at  once,  and 
some  pushing  Calderwood  about.  Apparently  there  was  some  mis- 
understanding on  technical  points,  Calderwood  misapprehending 
James's  meaning,  and  James  misconceiving  Calderwood's.  In  the 
end,  probably  by  the  influence  of  the  bishops,  Calderwood  was 
exiled.^^  He  did  not  at  once  leave  the  country,  but  remained  till 
after  the  king's  Five  Articles  had  been  accepted  by  the  Assembly 
of  Perth,  in  August  1618.  Then  Calderwood  produced  a  tract 
against  the  innovations  and  the  legality  of  the  Assembly  which 
accepted  them.  The  Assembly  at  St  Andrews,  in  November  16 17, 
had  been  thinly  attended,  and  had  merely  trifled  with  the  subject. 
James  was  indignant.  In  letters  not  without  coarse  humour,  he 
rebuked  Spottiswoode  and  the  bishops ;  they,  at  least,  should  keep 
Christmas  with  sermons  and  ceremonies.  He  would  cut  off  the 
stipends  of  all  recalcitrant  ministers,  and  stop  the  "  Constant  Plat " 
or  commission  for  the  better  endowment  of  the  Kirk.  The  bishops 
were  themselves  most  reluctant  to  force  the  king's  Five  Articles  on 
the  country. 

James  had  outraged  Scottish  feelings  where  they  were  most 
tender,  by  a  proclamation  licensing  sports  in  Lancashire  on  Sunday. 
The  populace,  he  said,  had  but  one  free  day  in  the  week,  and  on 
that  day,  for  lack  of  amusements,  they  tippled  in  alehouses.  Let 
them  go  to  church  first,  and  play  at  any  harmless  games  in  the 
afternoon.  James  had,  now  and  then,  a  dangerous  knack  of  being 
in  advance  of  his  age.  The  prohibition  of  amusements  on  Sunday 
was,  in  fact,  a  mere  invention  of  Presbyterians.  There  was  a 
Biblical  command  not  to  7i>ork  on  the  seventh  day ;  the  Kirk  had 
made  it  of  all  rules  the  most  sacred  not  to  play  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  When  Mr  Black,  who  was  the  occasion  of  the  Edinburgh 
riot  of  1596,  was  asked  to  set  down  a  list  of  precepts,  "he  placed 
in  the  forefront  that  order  be  taken  for  keeping  of  the  Saboth  day," 
though  why  Sunday  should  be  styled  Sabbath  has  always  perplexed 
the  ungodly.^^ 

The  ancient  faith  offered  a  number  of  things  that  could  be  done, 


I 


THE   ARTICLES   OF   PERTH    (1618).  515 

and  done  with,  penance,  pilgrimage,  and  so  forth.  In  this  sort  the 
Kirk  had  only  "the  Sabbath":  you  could  definitely  abstain  from 
golf  or  football  on  Sunday,  whatever  you  might  do  in  the  rest  of  the 
week.  Perhaps  this  was  the  cause  of  the  increasing  strictness  of 
the  Scot  about  Sunday,  and  that  sentiment  James  ruthlessly  offended. 
His  articles,  the  Articles  of  Perth,  were  voted  in  the  Assembly  of 
August  1618.  It  was  easily  proved  to  be  an  illegal  Assembly, 
pamphlets  concerning  it  flew  about,  especially  that  of  Calderwood  was 
notorious.  People  fled  the  churches  where  kneeling  was  enforced, 
or  did  not  kneel.  Men  of  all  ranks  were  recalcitrant.  The  Earls  of 
Roxburgh  and  Linlithgow  made  ingenious  excuses  for  evading  the 
practice,  as  did  the  Provost  of  Edinburgh  and  Sir  James  Skene.  The 
archbishops  who  disliked  the  Articles,  or  rather  the  trouble  about 
the  Articles,  as  much  as  any  one,  were  perpetually  arguing  with  non- 
conforming preachers.  The  great  old  name  of  William  Kirkcaldy 
of  Grange  reappears  ;  its  new  bearer  wrote  a  pamphlet  against  the 
Articles  of  Perth.  Mr  Robert  Bruce  was  again  in  trouble  for 
contumacy.     Sentences  of  banishment  and  fines  were  frequent. 

The  Easter  of  1621  could  not  be  reckoned  a  success.  In  the 
Little  Kirk,  on  Good  Friday,  there  were  about  sixty  men  and  twelve 
women.  The  fair  sex  were,  in  religion,  the  more  tenacious;  Catholic 
ladies  got  their  easy  husbands  into  trouble,  as  did  Covenanting 
ladies  under  Charles  II.  Wives  and  mothers  now  kept  the  less 
resolute  sex  from  conformity,  and  the  ladies  are  said  to  have  filled 
Mr  Calderwood's  purse  well  before  he  went  abroad,  while  Lady 
Cranstoun  had  especially  sheltered  him,  though  not  as  Dainty  Davy 
was  later  concealed  at  Cherrytrees.  The  communion  in  the  Old 
Kirk  was  peculiar.  "  The  Chancellor  distributed  the  bread  to  four 
or  five,  but  Mr  Patrick  gave  it  to  them  all  over  again,  to  make  sure 
work."  All  the  women  present  did  not  kneel,  they  resolutely  sat. 
The  University  did  not  communicate  at  all.  The  general  public 
communicated  sitting,  at  Dalkeith,  Duddingston,  and  Prestonpans. 
The  profaner  sort,  in  May,  went  to  May  revels  at  Roslin,  while 
English  and  Dutch  artisans  set  up  a  Maypole  at  St  Paul's  Works. 
This  we  know  to  have  been  a  heathen  abomination  denounced  by 
the  prophets  of  old.     (For  the  Assembly  of  Perth,  see  Calderwood, 

vii.  304-339-) 

Parliament  was  appointed  for  the  first  of  June  1621.  "The  best 
affected  professors  "  began  to  agitate,  and  wished  the  Town  Council 
to  petition  against  the  Articles  of  Perth.     The  Provost  was  afraid  to 


5l6  BLACK   SATURDAY   (1621). 

receive  and  present  the  address.  Some  ministers  did  send  in  a 
supplication  to  no  purpose.  On  July  22,  Parliament  having  been 
put  off,  a  preacher  dealt  with  the  king  in  the  fearless  old  fashion, 
and  publicly  insulted  the  bishops  to  their  faces.  He  was  warded  in 
Dumbarton.  The  preachers  had  gathered  from  all  quarters  and 
were  expelled  from  the  town ;  they  had  been  canvassing  for  votes 
as  to  the  Articles.  They  published  long  protestations  and  admoni- 
tions against  "  usurped  government  and  damned  hierarchy."  ^^  These 
tracts  influenced  the  voters,  but  were  counterworked  ^y  the 
Marquis  of  Hamilton,  the  king's  commissioner,  and  by  Tam  o'  the 
Cowgate,  now  Earl  of  Melrose.  The  first  business  was  financial : 
James's  expenses  for  his  daughter  Elizabeth,  the  wandering  Queen 
of  Hearts  and  of  Bohemia,  being  very  heavy.  The  Lords  of  the 
Articles  were  selected  thus :  the  bishops  chose  eight  peers,  they 
chose  eight  bishops,  and  the  sixteen  chose  eight  barons,  or  lairds, 
and  eight  burgesses.  The  officers  of  State  voted  with  the  Lords  of 
the  Articles.  A  considerable  amount  of  taxation  was  imposed, 
including  an  income  tax  for  three  years  on  investments.  The  Lords 
of  the  Articles  carried,  by  a  large  majority,  the  Articles  of  Perth. 
On  the  last  day  of  the  Parliament,  as  the  Lords  were  riding  to  the 
Tolbooth,  an  omen  occurred.  A  swan  flew  over  their  heads, 
"muttering  her  natural  song."  Calderwood  is  as  fond  of  omens 
as  Homer  or  Livy ;  the  people  deemed  the  portent  evil ;  but  we  are 
not  told  whether  the  bird  flew  from  left  or  right :  Sextos  or  dpia-Tepos 
o/Dvts.  The  amount  of  pagan  superstition  among  the  brethren  is 
amazing. 

The  protest  of  the  preachers  was  not  accepted.  The  Articles 
were  offered  e?z  bloc,  no  debate  was  permitted ;  votes  were 
given  as  "agree,"  "disagree,"  and  Calderwood  asserts  that  "dis- 
agrees "  were  recorded  as  "  agrees."  Proxy  votes,  which  had 
recently  come  in,  were  allowed.  The  Articles  were  carried  by  a 
considerable  majority.  "God  appeared  angry  at  the  concluding  of 
the  Articles,"  observes  Calderwood  :  the  month  being  August,  there 
was  a  thunderstorm.  The  day  was  called  "  Black  Saturday."  The 
ungodly  had  the  impudence  to  aver  that  the  Articles,  like  the  law 
of  Moses,  were  confirmed  by  fire  from  heaven,  which  Calderwood 
regards  as  "a  horrible  blasphemy."  Thus  heaven  and  the  swan 
were  moved  by  what  clearly  was  a  despotic,  unconstitutional,  and 
hasty  proceeding.  But  as  arguments  in  debate  do  not  affect  votes, 
the  house  might  have  discussed  the  Articles  for  a  month  without 


SERMONS 'UNDER   CENSURE.  517 

arriving  at  any  otlier  decision.  "  The  ayes  have  it."  The  Articles  of 
Perth  were  as  important  as  injudicious,  and  filled  the  mouths  of 
men.  The  learned  editor  of  the  "Privy  Council  Register"  doubts 
whether  many  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy  of  Scotland  to-day  could 
tell  what  the  Five  Articles  of  Perth  were.^*  If  he  is  right,  the 
education  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy,  as  regards  the  history  of  their 
own  Church,  must  be  neglected. 

The  affairs  of  the  Kirk  now  continued  to  be  one  long  course  of 
compulsion  and  resistance.  Bruce  was  sent  back  to  Inverness  :  the 
Easter  and  Christmas  communions  were  deserted,  or  were  scenes  of 
disorder.  The  entry  of  conformist  ministers  to  parishes  was 
opposed.  On  June  16,  1622,  died  the  great  Chancellor  Dunfermline, 
James's  chief  minister  in  Scotland,  the  upright  Octavian  of  old  days. 
Even  Calderwood  has  a  good  word  for  him,  though  he  was 
"  popishly  inclined."  "  He  was  a  good  justicier,  courteous  and 
humane  both  to  strangers  and  to  his  own  country  people,  but  no 
good  friend  to  the  bishops."  A  Catholic  himself,  Dunfermline 
would  have  governed  Scotland  well :  neither  he  nor  any  other 
statesman,  lay  or  clerical,  approved  of  James's  despotism  about  the 
Articles  of  Perth.  Dunfermline  was  succeeded  in  the  chancellorship 
by  Sir  George  Hay,  Clerk  of  the  Register.  The  king  now  bade  all 
preachers  take  example  by  the  English  Book  of  Homilies,  "  a 
pattern  and  a  boundary,  as  it  were,  for  the  preaching  ministers." 
Nobody  was  to  touch  on  "the  deep  points  of  predestination, 
reprobation,  or  grace,"  things  to  be  left  to  bishops  and  deans. 
Faith  and  good  life  were  alone  to  be  the  topics.  Puritans  and 
Papists  were  not  to  be  attacked  from  the  pulpit. 

Here  was  a  drying  up  of  the  wells !  No  politics  and  no 
predestination  were  permitted  in  the  preaching  place,  "  a  blash  o' 
cauld  morality  "  alone  was  left  to  the  brethren.  Tyranny,  it  might 
seem,  could  go  no  farther. ^^  But  tyranny  could  go  farther.  In  the 
New  College  at  St  Andrews  the  English  Liturgy  was  actually  used 
in  chapel  (Jan.  15,  1623).  On  June  20  a  portrait  of  the  king,  at 
Linlithgow,  fell  from  the  wall.  As  a  king  of  France  did  not  survive 
a  similar  omen  for  more  than  six  weeks,  it  was  reckoned  that 
James's  time  might  be  short.  It  was  not  to  be  long,  but  Lennox 
died  first,  and  suddenly,  on  February  16,  1624.  He  was  kind  and 
popular,  and  never  meddled  in  Kirk  matters.  The  opposition  to 
the  Articles  waxed  so  strong  in  Edinburgh  that  a  proclamation  was 
issued    against    conventicles    (June    10,    1624).       James    actually 


5l8  DEATH   OF   JAMES   (1625). 

threatened  to  remove  the  Courts  of  Justice  from  Edinburgh — the 
old  threat  after  the  December  riot  of  1596 — if  the  citizens  would 
not  go  to  communion  on  Christmas  day.  But  on  December  15, 
1624,  the  Council  proclaimed  that  on  November  26  James  had 
agreed  to  defer  his  threats,  as  in  the  proclamation,  till  Easter.  He 
died  on  March  27,  1625  :  "the  Lord  removed  him  out  of  the  way 
fourteen  days  before  the  Easter  communion."  So  says  Calderwood, 
who  mentions  the  reports  that  James  was  poisoned  by  the  mother  of 
Buckingham.  It  would  have  been  just  as  easy  for  Episcopalians  to 
say  that  he  was  poisoned  by  an  agent  of  the  Presbyterians. 

The  king  passed  away  in  the  midst  of  the  tempest  which  he  had 
raised,  which  his  son  would  raise  to  a  higher  power,  but  which  only 
years  could  lull,  pulveris  exigid  jactu.  Not  only  justice  and  fairness, 
but  the  most  ordinary  common-sense,  should  have  warned  James 
against  this  final  and  fatal  meddling  with  the  consciences  of  the 
majority  of  his  people.  Conscience  in  these  days  went  for  very 
little.  James  had  burned  two  Unitarians  in  London  without 
provoking  remonstrance,  but  then  the  Unitarians  were  a  little  flock. 
The  consciences  of  Catholics  were  wronged  every  day  :  they  were 
driven  into  impious  temples,  and  compelled  to  sit  at  a  sacrilegious 
feast.  But  if  numerous,  they  were  weak  and  without  leaders  ;  the 
world  was  against  them.  To  force,  as  James  did,  the  consciences 
of  the  Presbyterian  majority,  who  were  soon  to  have  leaders  enough, 
and  who  had  arms  and  resources,  was  not  more  cruel  and  wicked  than 
to  burn  Unitarians,  and  drive  Catholics,  by  fines  and  banishment,  to 
eat  and  drink  their  own  damnation.  But  that  infamous  policy,  as 
against  Catholics,  being  approved  of  by  the  majority,  was  successful. 
To  constrain  the  conscience  of  the  learned,  the  rich,  the  many,  even 
of  the  nobles  in  several  cases,  was  not  more  wicked,  but  was 
impolitic  to  the  verge  of  insanity. 

Even  Spottiswoode  was  heard  to  say  that  the  king  was  determined 
to  be  his  own  Pope.  His  theology  had  advanced  rapidly  since 
the  day  when  he  told  the  General  Assembly  that  the  Church  of 
England  dealt  in  "  a  mass  without  the  liftings  "  (the  elevation  of  the 
host),  and  that  Christmas  and  Easter  were  human  inventions. 
Though  James  is  said,  not  on  the  best  authority,  to  have  foreseen 
the  mischief  inherent  in  the  character  of  Laud,  no  one  could  tell 
where  he  would  stop.  He  might  become  a  Catholic  after  the 
manner  of  Henry  VIH.,  and  enforce  a  popeless  Catholicism.  The 
Articles  of  Perth  seem  very  trifling   matters   to  us  :    to  the  Scots 


JAMES   SOWED   THE   WIND.  519 

they  implied  acceptance  of  every  doctrine  that  they  disbelieved  in 
and  detested.  The  king,  by  an  autocratic  violence,  was  forcing 
them  to  forswear  their  creed  and  imperil  their  immortal  souls. 
They  were  being  constrained  to  be  idolaters.  "The  Spreit  of  God" 
was  banished  from  their  congregations.  The  Divine  afllatus  was 
checked  by 

De  par  le  Roi  ;  dejetise  d  Dieu 
De  faire  miracle  dans  ce  lieu. 

It  was  thus  that  the  conduct  of  the  king  appeared  to  the  minds  of 
the  Presbyterians.  They  had  brought  it  on  themselves.  Their 
irreconcilable  way,  their  taunts  and  insults,  their  intolerable  claim  to 
political  interference,  based  on  their  inspiration,  had  never  been 
forgotten  or  forgiven  by  James.  Not  content  to  break  their  power, 
in  its  pretensions  as  absurd,  in  its  consequence  as  insufferable  as  his 
own,  he  had  given  his  son  Charles  to  a  woman  of  the  idolaters.  Who 
knew  but  that,  like  Argyll,  he  might  become  an  idolater  himself? 
He  died  before  discontent  broke  into  flame,  felix  opportunitate 
mortis. 

On  James  himself  the  final  word  was  spoken  when  he  was  called 
"the  Wisest  Fool  in  Christendom."  Despite  his  ungainly  and 
disgustful  ways,  his  grotesque  eccentricities,  his  pedantries,  his 
shameful  favourites,  and  evil  example  of  tolerating  vices,  some  of 
which  he  did  not  practise,  James  was  probably  the  ablest  man  of 
his  house  since  the  death  of  James  I.  of  Scotland.  That  he  should 
have  succeeded  as  he  did,  despite  his  personal  disadvantages  ;  that 
he  should  have  floated  through  the  ceaseless  turmoils  of  his  reign  in 
Scotland,  and  escaped  the  intrigues  of  England, — aimed  at  his  liberty, 
but  involving  danger  to  his  life, — these  things  proved  remarkable 
qualities.  Once  safe  in  England  he  had  really  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  Kirk,  the  danger  came  from  his  own  intolerable  despotism.  While 
he  was  in  Scotland  the  Kirk  could  agitate  till  a  sufficient  number 
of  nobles  was  ready  to  seize  the  royal  person.  That  was  the  danger 
which  his  accession  to  the  English  Crown  annihilated.  A  wise  man 
would  have  taken  the  opportunity  to  be  tolerant  of  the  preachers. 
But  James  only  showed  his  cleverness  in  wrangles  with  them,  his 
folly  by  goading  them  to  resistance. 

Having  the  opportunity,  for  the  first  time  in  history,  to  quiet  the 
Borders,  he  took  it,  and  he  was  not  wholly  unsuccessful  with  the 
Highlands.  No  man  could  put  down  the  feuds  of  the  nobles  and 
the  gentry,  but  he  considerably  discouraged   them.      His  ineffable 


$20  CHARACTER   OF   JAMES. 

conceit  and  relentless  egotism  (not  unaccompanied  by  good  nature 
where  he  was  unopposed),  and  the  dissimulation  bred  by  a  youth 
of  fear,  in  an  atmosphere  of  universal  falsehood  and  treachery,  were 
his  worst  moral  qualities  as  a  man.  Though  a  pedant  he  was 
learned,  probably  the  most  learned  man  who  ever  occupied  a 
British  throne,  though  in  literary  qualities  he  was  far  behind  the 
royal  poet  who  was  slain  in  the  Dominican  monastery  of  Perth  ; 
while  in  wit  he  could  not  compare  with  Charles  II.  To  regard 
James  as  a  mere  grotesque  figure,  "gentle  King  Jamie,"  is  an  error  : 
he  could  be  terrible.  As  a  rule,  when  he  was  in  the  right  (as  in  the 
matter  of  the  Union,  and  in  his  toleration  when  politics  were  not 
concerned)  he  was  in  the  right  too  soon ;  while  in  the  matter 
of  witchcraft  he  was  in  the  wrong  too  late.  Too  late,  also,  he 
was  in  his  almost  unavoidable  acceptance,  as  doctrine,  of  the 
Tudor  practice  of  despotism.  No  king  of  Scotland  was  encouraged 
by  such  fulsome  ilatteries  as,  in  England,  continued  from  the  courtly 
abasement  of  Elizabeth's  reign. 

James  took  for  reahties  the  formulae  of  adulation  which  survived 
from  the  court  of  a  woman  and  a  Tudor.  Parliament  could  not 
remove  the  fond  illusions  on  which  his  son  was  to  make  shipwreck. 
Of  James's  six  immediate  ancestors,  five  had  died  a  violent  death, 
as  his  unhappy  son  was  to  die.  Charles  I.  was  the  only  Stuart 
king  since  Robert  III.  who  did  not  begin  his  reign  with  a  long 
minority.  That  which  had  been  so  constant  a  curse  to  his  house 
might,  in  this  one  case,  have  been  a  blessing.  To  James  alone,  the 
least  desirable,  the  most  distasteful  of  his  line,  did  Heaven  give  good 
fortune.      How  he  abused  the  gift  has  been  made  manifest. 

The  period  covered  by  our  volume  ends  with  James's  death. 
But  we  must  return,  in  the  following  chapter,  to  the  remoter  and 
more  lawless  portions  of  his  realms. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    XIX. 

*   Spottiswoode,  iii.  156. 

^  Spottiswoode,  iii.  148-155,  December  1604. 

^  Register  Privy  Council,  vii.  512-513,  517-518. 

•*  State  Trials,  vol.  ii.  pp.  561-695. 

^  Pitcairn,  ii.  5S4. 


NOTES.  521 

'  Spottiswoode,  iii.  289,  note  by  Mr  Mark  Napier,  apparently. 

'  To  what  extent  James  was  consciously  implicated  in  this  affair  of  the  letter  to 
the  Pope,  or  in  Ogilvie  of  Pourie's  mission  to  Rome  and  Spain  in  1595,  is  a  very 
obscure  question.  As  to  the  letter  which  caused  the  ruin  of  Balmerino,  Mr  Hume 
Brown  says,  "There  can  be  little  doubt  that  James  wrote  it"  (Hume  Brown,  ii. 
237,  note  2).  Mr  Gardiner  disbelieves  this,  and  speaks  of  the  king's  "trans- 
parent ingenuousness"  (Gardiner,  ii.  p.  33).  The  author  inclines  to  agree- 
with  Mr  Gardiner,  that  Balmerino's  confession  contains  the  truth  (Pitcairn,  ii. 
568  et  seq.).  As  for  Ogilvie  of  Pourie,  in  1601  he  wrote  to  the  king,  "  I  never  had 
or  used  any  commission  of  your  majesty  to  any  foreign  prince  in  my  life,  neither 
in  Flanders,  France,  nor  Spain,"  which  is  probably  true,  though  it  is  Pourie  who 
says  so  (Hatfield  MSS.  90,  vol.  cxxxvi.).     Cf.  p.  496  supra. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  ix.  ix. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  ix.  xiii.  xv. 

10  Privy  Council  Register,  ix.  75. 

11  Privy  Council  Register,  ix.  714,  715. 
^^  Calderwood,  vii.  164. 

^^  Calderwood,  vii.  173. 
"  Pitcairn,  iii.  254,  257. 

^■'  Relatio   Incarcerationis  et  Martyrii   P.  Joannis   Ogilbei  .  .   .  descripta  ad 
verbum  ex  autographo  ipsius  (Duaci,  1615). 
^®  Calderwood,  vii.  193. 

"  Botfield,  Original  Letters  (1S52),  ii.  385,  387. 
"^  Botfield,  Original  Letters,  ii.  399-401. 
^^  Narratives  of  Scottish  Catholics,  pp.  311,  312. 
-"  Calderwood,  vii.  p.  196. 
-'  .See  Chapter  IX.  of  this  volume. 
--  Calderwood,  vii.  203. 
^  Calderwood,  vii.  222. 

^  On  this  work  see  Dr  Masson,  Privy  Council  Register,  x.  cviii.  cix. 
^  Calderwood,  vii.  220-242  ;  Spottiswoode,  iii.  230-238. 
^  Calderwood,  vii.  243. 
■■^  Original  Letters,  ii.  496-499. 
'■^  See  Privy  Council  Register,  vol.  xi. 
-^  Spottiswoode,  iii.  241,  245. 
^^  Spottiswoode,  iii.  246,  247. 
^1  Calderwood,  vii.  261,  271. 

"'-'  Hay  Fleming,  St  Andrews'  Kirk-Session  Register,  ii.  IxxiiL 
•'^  Calderwood,  vii.  472-488. 
**  Privy  Council  Register,  xii.  p.  Ixxxv. 
^  Calderwood,  vii.  pp.  560-562. 


522 


CHAPTER   XX. 


HIGHLANDS    AND    BORDERS. 


1603-1610. 

A  NECESSARY  result  of  James's  accession  to  the  English  throne  was 
the  pacification  of  the  Borders.  For  several  centuries  the  Marches 
of  the  two  countries  had  been  in  a  social  condition  much  like  that 
of  the  tribes  on  the  Afghan  frontier  of  India.  A  warlike  population, 
existing  in  the  clan  system,  had  no  particular  morality  or  loyalty, 
except  fidelity  to  the  laird,  to  "the  name,"  and  to  outlaws  and 
banished  men.  "  On  no  condition  was  extradition  "  allowed  on  the 
Border.  Property  consisted  chiefly  of  cattle  and  horses,  and,  by 
endless  raids,  was  kept  in  lively  circulation.  There  was,  of  course, 
a  standing  feud  between  the  clans  on  either  side  of  the  burn  or  glen 
which  constituted  "  the  Border "  in  each  district.  But  the  feud 
between  English  and  Scots,  as  such,  was  relatively  mild,  and  even 
humorous, — a  kind  of  game  with  rules  of  "  hot  trod,"  and  "  cold 
trod,"  and  so  forth,  of  its  own  ;  these  laws  regulated  raids  and  the 
recovery  of  cattle  stolen  in  raids.  The  wardens,  also, — it  might  be 
Buccleuch  and  Scrope,  with  their  deputies,  such  as  Scott  of  the 
Haining,  and  Salkeld  of  Corby, — had  peaceful  days  of  meeting,  when 
the  riders  of  both  sides  met  and  discussed  their  feats  of  robbery 
and  fire-raising,  and  their  duels,  much  as  men  might  discuss  a  foot- 
ball match.  Now  it  is  the  Captain  of  Bewcastle  who  has  harried 
Jamie  Telfer  of  the  Dodhead  ;  now  it  is  Jamie  Telfer  who  has 
"  warned  the  water  speedily,"  and  brought  all  the  Scotts  of  Upper 
Teviotdale  down  on  the  Captain  of  Bewcastle. 

Rough  "  riding  ballads  "  were  sung  about  these  feats,  which  now 
and  then  entailed  a  vendetta,  but,  on  the  whole,  did  not  cause  much 
bad  blood.      In  fact,  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  Border  was  that 


BORDER   COMMISSIONERS   (1605).  523 

certain  clans,  as  the  Netherby  Grahams,  the  Elliots,  Crosbies, 
Nixons,  and  Robsons,  were  of  dubious  nationality  :  they  might  take 
either  national  side,  as  opportunity  served  and  temptation  arose. 
Probably  Buccleuch  contrived  the  rescue  of  Kinmont  Willie  with 
the  aid  and  connivance  of  the  Grahams  who  lay  between  Langholm 
and  Carlisle.  On  both  sides  of  the  line  the  adjacent  clans  had  a 
common  interest  in  preserving  their  lawless  freedom.  Justice  only 
took  the  shape  of  sporadic  hangings  of  "  pretty  men,"  who  were  re- 
spected and  regretted,  and  left  friends  and  sons  to  carry  on  the  old 
sportive  military  existence.  Private  feuds  between  clans  and 
neighbours  were  more  cruel  and  violent  than  the  skirmishes  of  an 
international  character.  Kers  and  Scotts  and  Elliots,  in  the  east  and 
centre,  Maxwells  and  Johnstons  in  the  west,  and  in  Dumfries  and 
Galloway,  fought  like  fiends,  for  centuries,  over  some  old  quarrel  of 
which  the  origin  might  be  lost,  but  which  produced  new  bloodshed 
and  new  revenges  in  every  generation.  The  Criminal  Trials  are 
full  of  "  spuilzies,"  maiming  of  cattle,  burnings,  shootings  "with 
hagbuts  and  pistolets,"  slayings  of  men.  The  existence  of  this  ani- 
mated kind  of  society  was  inevitable  while  the  two  countries  were 
separate. 

But  when  James  became  King  of  England,  the  Borders,  as  he 
said,  became  the  "  heart  of  his  royal  empire."  The  shires  of 
Berwick,  Selkirk,  Roxburgh,  Peebles,  Dumfries,  and  the  Stewartries 
of  Dumfries  and  Annandale  must  be  brought  to  order,  and  five 
gentlemen  were  appointed  commissioners  for  that  purpose.  They 
had  powers  to  hold  courts,  and  were  granted  immunity  for  "any 
mischance  or  inconvenient,"  such  as  hanging  the  wrong  man.  For 
Northumberland,  Cumberland,  and  Westmorland  commissioners 
were  also  appointed.  Extradition  was  now  to  be  the  order  of  the 
day.  The  incorrigible  were  to  be,  rather  vaguely,  "  removed  to  some 
other  place,"  where  "change  of  air"  might  "make  in  them  a  change 
of  manners."  Of  the  English  commissioners,  the  name  of  Sir 
Wilfrid  Lawson  is  most  familiar  to  modern  ears ;  of  the  Scots, 
Gideon  Murray  of  Elibank  on  Tweed.  All  dubious  characters  were 
to  be  disarmed,  especially  of  hagbuts  and  pistols,  before  May  20, 
1605  ;  and  a  kind  of  census  of  the  natives  was  to  be  taken.  No 
gaols  existed,  so  new  gaols  were  to  be  built  in  the  burghs,  and  as 
the  prisoners  could  not  maintain  themselves  in  prison,  and  the 
burgesses  would  not,  "justice  is  to  be  administered  to  them  as  soon 
as   possible."     Hence  our  proverb,  "Jeddart  justice:    hang  a  man 


524  LORD   MAXWELL   EXECUTED. 

first,  and  try  him  afterwards."  So  the  commissioners,  not  without 
misgivings  and  questions,  began  to  hang  persons  Hke  "Jock  of  the 
Shiels,  ane  lymnar  of  auld."  They  doubted  about  poor  Jock,  but 
the  Lords  said  "  Hang  him."  Tom  Armstrong,  "  a  proper  young 
man,"  against  whom  there  was  no  evidence  at  all,  the  Lords  ordered 
to  be  hanged,  merely  pour  encourager  les  autres.  A  horse  had  been 
stolen,  its  owner  went  to  Peebles  to  testify  that  Tom  was  innocent, 
yet  the  gallows  got  him.  In  April  1606  we  find  some  forty  proper 
men  hanged — surely  the  worst  use  to  make  of  them  ;  and  about 
fifteen  others,  including  a  bastard  of  Kinmont  Willie,  were  hanged 
in  November.  Scores  of  freebooters  were  fugitive  in  the  hills  and 
morasses,  pursued  by  "  lurgg  dogges."  Cranstoun  got  an  indemnity 
for  executions  done  without  trial ;  and  the  active  Earl  of  Dunbar 
was  placed  on  the  Border  Commission.  In  1607  a  number  of  small 
Border  lairds — Rutherfords,  Elliots,  Kers,  and  Scotts — were  removed 
from  the  Border,  and  warded  in  northern  or  inland  towns ;  and  the 
same  policy,  in  1608,  was  exercised  on  a  crowd  of  gentry  of  the 
house  of  Maxwell;  all  were  sent  north  of  Tay.  By  July  1609  the 
doers  of  the  work  could  congratulate  themselves  that  the  Borders 
were  tranquil.^ 

One  noble  victim  perished  in  the  persistent  massacres  of  rough 
justice.  This  was  Lord  Maxwell,  who  was  a  Bothwell  for  reckless 
mischief.  He  was  the  son  of  the  sixth  Lord  Maxwell,  who,  after 
Morton's  execution  in  1581,  for  a  while  bore  the  title  and  brooked 
the  lands  of  Morton.  In  1585  Morton's  attainder  was  reversed, 
Maxwell  lost  his  prize,  and  took  to  intriguing  with  Spain.  He  was 
taken  prisoner,  and  Johnston  succeeded  to  his  wardenship  of  the 
West  Marches.  Though  the  wardenship  was  restored  to  Maxwell, 
his  clan  and  that  of  the  Johnstons  entered  on  a  feud  :  and  in  a 
great  battle  (Dec.  7,  1593),  on  the  Dryfe  Sands,  Maxwell  was  de- 
feated and  slain.  Some  2000  men  fought  on  either  side;  and  the 
phrase,  "a  Lockerby  lick,"  is  said  to  be  derived  from  the  ghastly 
wounds  inflicted  on  the  fugitives  in  the  streets  of  Lockerby.  Max- 
well's son  inherited  the  feud,  and,  at  a  meeting  for  reconciliation, 
shot  Sir  James  Johnston  through  the  back  (April  6,  1608).  He 
was  warded  in  Edinburgh  Castle,  but  made  a  dexterous  escape, 
wounding  several  of  the  warders.  In  1612,  being  in  the  north  of 
Scotland,  he  was  betrayed  by  his  kinsman,  the  Earl  of  Caithness, 
and,  on  May  21,  16 13,  he  was  beheaded  at  Edinburgh.  This 
execution  was  procured  by  the  Laird  of  Johnston's  friends,  specially 


THE   HIGHLANDS.  525 

by  Sir  Robert  Ker,  Earl  of  Rochester  (Somerset  the  favourite),  "  the 
chief  guider  of  the  court  at  that  time,"  says  Calderwood.  There 
was  a  great  deal  of  sympathy  with  Maxwell  though  he  was  a  Catholic. 
He  certainly  had  the  charm  of  recklessness,  and  though  he  had 
treacherously  murdered  a  man  under  trust,  the  man  had  been  his 
feudal  foe.^ 

At  this  distance  of  time  (with  all  respect  to  the  name  of  Maxwell), 
we  feel  more  pity  for  poor  Tom  Armstrong,  who  was  hanged  merely 
for  being  suspected  of  knowing  too  much  about  the  stealing  of  a 
nag.  The  execution  of  the  Mures  of  Auchendrane,  in  161 1,  for  a 
series  of  cold-blooded  murders,  later  to  be  described,  proceeding 
from  a  murder-band  or  contract  of  the  usual  sort,  proved  that,  in 
Scotland,  the  law  was  beginning  to  be  a  terror  to  evil-doers,  even 
when  of  good  county  families.  It  may  be  remarked  that  fifty  years 
of  an  open  Bible,  and  of  the  Truth  constantly  preached,  seem  in  no 
way  to  have  mollified  the  ferocity  of  the  Scottish  people,  but  rather, 
if  anything,  to  have  increased  their  bloodthirsty  dispositions.  A  few 
mounted  police  and  the  expense  of  some  miles  of  rope  were  infinitely 
more  efficacious.  The  reduction  of  the  Highlands  was  undertaken 
simultaneously  with  the  settlement  of  the  Borders,  but  was  a  task 
much  more  difficult,  and,  by  the  Stuart  kings,  never  fully  accom- 
plished. 

THE    HIGHLANDS. 

In  various  parts  of  the  Highlands  Presbyterianism  is  still  called  the 
Religion  of  the  Yellow  Stick.  There  is  a  legend  that  a  chief  caned 
all  his  tenants  into  kirk,  where  or  at  what  date  is  unknown.  The 
great  Lauchlan  Maclean  of  Dowart,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  Presby- 
terian, and  took  the  Covenant  in  "  the  Little  Kirk  "  on  the  day  of 
the  Edinburgh  riot  of  December  17,  1596.  Mackintosh  also  spoke 
generously  of  planting  kirks,  and  James  Melville  was  convinced  that 
the  Celts  would  make  good  Presbyterians.  But  the  West  High- 
lands and  the  Isles,  like  Nithsdale  and  Galloway,  were  not  yet 
"  planted "  with  ministers,  and  the  West  was  little  visited  by  the 
few  wandering  and  skulking  Catholic  missionaries.  These  regions, 
therefore,  like  Galloway  and  Annandale,  were  especially  turbulent. 
Macleods,  Mackenzies,  Macgregors,  Macdonalds,  and  Macfarlanes 
lived  in  a  state  of  open  war,  or,  in  the  case  of  the  two  latter  clans 
adjacent  to  civilisation,  of  brigandage. 


526  COMPANY   OF   THE   LEWES. 

It  was  necessary  to  try  to  bring  the  Celts  into  order,  a  task  in 
which  the  Crown  never  succeeded  for  want  of  money,  of  a  standing 
army,  and  of  poUce.  The  difficulties,  when  a  royal  expedition  was 
attempted,  were  of  a  kind  not  unfamiliar.  The  castles  of  the  island 
chiefs  were  of  a  strength  impregnable  to  the  weak  artillery  of  the 
assailants.  To  burn  the  cots  and  destroy  the  crops  of  the  clansmen 
might  irritate  but  could  not  subdue  the  hardy  recalcitrants.  Swift- 
footed  and  mobile,  they  succeeded  in  night  surprises  of  camps, 
.and,  if  hard  pressed,  easily  escaped  by  boats  to  other  islands.  A 
common  ruse  was  to  attack  a  camp,  and  then  fall  back  among  their 
unmapped  hills  and  glens,  alluring  the  pursuers  into  ambushes  for 
which  every  wood  and  corry  afforded  shelter.  Driven  far  from  their 
base,  the  royal  forces  were  no>v  attacked  by  overwhelming  numbers ; 
now  returned  to  find  that  their  camp  had  been  fired,  and  that  their 
supplies  were  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy.^ 

On  July  9,  1599,  the  Privy  Council  tried  what  could  be  done  by 
a  vigorous  proclamation.  The  Celts  were  persecuting  what  may  be 
called  the  Chartered  Company  of  the  Lewes,  which  was  an  associa- 
tion of  Fifeshire  and  other  gentlemen  to  exploit  and  establish  towns, 
agriculture,  and  fisheries  in  that  island.  A  commission  was  given 
to  Lennox  and  Huntly  to  quiet  the  Lewes  and  collect  the  royal 
rents.  The  two  lieutenants  were  to  be  assisted  by  a  council  of 
nobles  and  gentlemen.^  Negotiations  were  entered  into  in  the 
September  of  the  same  year  for  reducing  the  southern  isles  and  pro- 
montories of  the  West  coast.  The  focus  of  trouble  was  the  Castle  of 
Dunyveg  in  Isla,  the  old  royal  seat  of  the  sons  of  Somerled.  For 
sway  in  Isla,  and  the  long,  narrow,  but  fertile  peninsula  of  Kintyre, 
Macdonalds  had  been  cutting  each  other's  throats,  while  Macleans 
took  part  in  the  fray,  and  Campbells  waited  for  their  opportunity, 
which  was  soon  to  come.  Probably  the  rightful  holder  of  Dunyveg 
was  the  truculent  old  Angus  Macdonald,  whom  his  son,  Sir  James, 
■once  burned  out  of  his  house.  In  1599,  in  September,  negotiations 
were  begun  with  Sir  James  Macdonald.  He  was  to  evacuate  Kin- 
tyre  in  favour  of  new  settlers ;  was  to  place  the  Castle  of  Dunyveg, 
in  Isla,  in  the  king's  hands ;  and  was  to  receive,  as  royal  tenant,  the 
lands  of  Isla,  and  make  provision  for  his  father,  Angus,  whom  he 
had  once  nearly  burned  to  death. ^  No  good  came  of  all  this,  for 
which  Sir  James  and  his  friends  blamed  Argyll  and  Campbell  of 
-Calder.  Sir  James  was  a  polished  ruffian,  but  the  Campbells  usually 
bear  the  weight  of  all  turmoils  which  turned  to  their  own  advantage. 


CELTIC   FEUDS.  527 

In  October  1599,  fortified  by  hopes  from  Lennox  and  Huntly,  the 
Lowland  settlers,  with  an  armed  force,  set  off  to  "  plant  "  the  Lewes. 
Unsheltered  in  the  wild  weather,  they  sickened  and  died.  Leirmont 
of  Balcomy  was  taken  at  sea  and  held  prisoner  by  Murdoch  Mac- 
leod ;  the  curse  of  Andrew  Melville,  with  whom  he  had  quarrelled 
in  St  Andrews,  was  thought  to  pursue  "  this  jolly  gentleman,"  who 
died  in  the  Orkneys.  But  Murdoch  was  given  up  to  the  adven- 
turers by  his  brother  Neil  Macleod,  who  allied  himself  with  the 
Lowlanders.  Murdoch  was  executed  at  St  Andrews,  and  the  Lord 
of  Kintail,  a  Mackenzie  and  a  foe  of  the  settlers,  was  imprisoned. 
He  escaped,  and  continued  to  oppose  the  "  planters." 

James,  in  1600,  thought  of  visiting  the  Isles  with  a  large  array, 
but  ships,  money,  men,  and  perhaps  inclination,  were  deficient. 
The  Highland  historian,  Dr  Gregory  (one  of  the  Gregarach),  accuses 
James  of  cowardice,  but  we  know  how  destitute  he  was  of  money 
in  1600.  Nicholson  (July  9)  writes  to  Cecil  about  the  king's  poverty  ; 
the  Convention  in  which  Gowrie  spoke  refused  supplies ;  and  (July 
22)  Nicholson  says  that  the  expedition  to  the  Isles  was  abandoned 
"on  account  of  the  great  scarcity  in  the  country."^  In  June  1601 
increased  powers  were  given  to  Lennox  and  Huntly,  but  these 
powers  were  not  used.  In  Skye,  Macdonald  of  Sleat  and  Macleod 
were  at  feud ;  they  were  brothers-in-law,  and  Macdonald  had  re- 
pudiated Macleod's  sister  with  insult,  divorced  her,  and  wedded  a 
sister  of  Mackenzie  of  Kintail.  Then  began  expeditions  of  murder 
and  rapine  through  Skye,  Harris,  and  the  Long  Island ;  the  natives 
were  driven  to  eat  their  horses  and  cats.  Government  interfered ; 
Macdonald  was  to  surrender  to  Argyll,  Macleod  to  Huntly,  and  the 
clans  were  reconciled.  The  Lewes  settlers  now  quarrelled  with 
Neil  Macleod,  and  had  the  worse  of  the  strife ;  while  Mackenzie  of 
Kintail  slipped  on  the  settlers  a  chief  who  was  the  nephew  of  Neil, 
and  had  been  a  prisoner.  Round  this  young  Tormod  the  Celts 
rallied  as  the  representative  of  the  true  Macleod  dynasty,  and  they 
reduced  the  Lowland  settlers  to  a  capitulation.  They  kept  two 
hostages,  turned  the  other  Lowlanders  out,  and  secured  a  pardon, 
but  the  settlers  did  not  observe  the  conditions,  and  the  war  was 
renewed,  or  rather  was  deferred,  till  1603. 

The  Glengarry  Macdonalds  now  went  to  war  with  the  Mackenzies, 
and  young  Glengarry  was  slain  in  a  night  surprise  of  his  galley.  By 
burning  a  church  full  of  Mackenzies  the  Macdonalds  avenged  this 
disaster,   Glengarry's   piper   strutting  round    the    edifice  playing    a 


528  THE   MACGREGORS. 

pibroch.  The  singular  point  is  that  there  was  any  church  to  burn. 
But  it  is  fair  to  add  that  Dr  Gregory  could  find  "  no  public  notice 
taken  of  such  an  enormity,"  so  we  may  trust  that  the  story  (so 
unfavourable  to  Glengarry)  is  a  Mackenzie  myth.  The  Celtic 
excesses  in  West  Ross  and  the  Isles  were  nearly  as  remote,  in  eflect, 
as  now  is  a  rising  in  Fiji.  But  the  Macgregors,  in  the  Lennox,  were 
much  nearer  home.  This  unlucky  clan  seems  to  date  its  misfortunes 
from  Bruce's  forfeiture  of  the  Macdougals.  They  were  harried  from 
one  reservation  to  another,  a  fleeting  race,  the  Children  of  the  Mist. 
As  Argyll  "  gave  them  wood  and  water  "  down  to  the  days  of  Rob 
Roy,  he  was  responsible  for  their  behaviour.  But  just  as  a  much 
later  Argyll,  "  Red  Ian  of  the  Battles,"  found  Rob  Roy  a  useful  spy 
and  secret  ally  in  1715,  so  the  Argyll  of  1603  is  accused  of  "hound- 
ing out"  the  Gregarach  against  Colquhoun  of  Luss.  The  Mac- 
gregors invaded  the  Lennox,  it  is  said,  by  virtue  of  a  commission 
from  the  king.  The  great  fight,  or  slaughter,  of  Glenfruin  occurred 
on  February  7  or  8,  1603.  On  January  20,  1604,  Macgregor  of 
Glenstra  was  tried  for  his  feat  of  arms.  His  idea,  it  is  alleged,  was 
to  extirpate  the  Colquhouns  and  Buchanans,  and  he  was  aided  by  the 
Camerons,  the  Clananverich  (not  Clan  Vourich,  the  Macphersons  ?), 
and  "  other  broken  men  and  sorners."  The  Glencoe  Macdonalds 
appear  to  have  been  in  the  fray."  The  invaders  wore  coats  of  mail, 
and  had  muskets,  bows,  two-handed  swords,  and  pole-axes.  They 
entered  Glenfruin,  in  Luss's  territory,  and  slew,  among  others, 
"  Tobias  SmoUet,  bailie  of  Dumbarton,"  and  bearer  of  the  name 
made  immortal  by  the  author  of  "  Peregrine  Pickle."  About  a 
hundred  and  forty  persons  were  slain,  many  of  them  as  disarmed 
prisoners.  The  house  of  Luss  was  burned,  and  a  very  large  creagh 
was  driven.  Nothing  is  said  in  the  indictment  about  the  massacre 
of  a  number  of  students  or  schoolboys  who  had  made  a  trip  to  see 
the  sport.^ 

While  most  writers  accuse  Argyll  of  "  hounding  out "  the  Mac- 
gregors, Calderwood  says  that  Lady  Lennox  was  believed  to  have 
instigated  the  raid.  The  Macgregors,  one  might  conceive,  needed 
little  hounding  out  by  lord  or  lady.  In  October  1603  Ardkinglas 
invited  the  chief  of  the  Macgregors  to  dinner,  seized  him,  and  was 
taking  him  by  boat  to  Arg}'ll,  when  Macgregor  leaped  overboard 
and  escaped.  Argyll  then  betrayed  Macgregor,  under  promise  of 
sending  him  to  England,  to  the  king.  He  did  carry  the  chief  to 
Berwick,  that   is,  into    England,   and   then    brought   him  back  to 


THE   NAMELESS   CLAN.  529 

Edinburgh,  where  the  chief  was  tried  and  executed  on  January  20, 
1604.'-^ 

Poor  Macgregor  left  a  statement,  written  in  the  hand  of  James 
Primrose,  Clerk  of  Council.  Argyll,  he  said,  had  been  his  ruin. 
First  he  hounded  the  Macleans  and  Camerons  on  to  the  Macgregor 
lands  in  Rannoch.  Then,  these  Macgregors  being  destitute, 
Argyll  urged  them  to  attack  the  Buchanans  and  the  Colquhouns 
of  Luss.  Next  this  Macchiavelli  suborned  Ardkinglas  to  betray 
Macgregor,  and  Macgregor  to  slay  Ardkinglas.  How  much  truth 
there  is  in  all  this  we  have  no  method  of  discovering.  It  is 
certain  that  the  very  name  of  Macgregor  was  abolished  by  an 
Act  of  April  3,  1603.^*'  The  results  were  that  many  of  the  clan, 
changing  their  name,  became  sober  and  distinguished  citizens, 
like  the  family  of  Gregory,  which,  for  several  generations,  produced 
men  of  learning  if  not  of  genius.  On  the  other  side  the  body 
of  the  clan  became  Ishmaelites,  their  hands  against  every  man's 
hand. 

In  1 608  considerable  preparations  were  made  for  the  sub- 
jection of  the  islands,  and  a  guard  of  500  was  allotted  to  the  new 
lieutenant,  Lord  Ochiltree.  He  was  assisted  by  a  council,  with 
the  Bishop  of  the  Isles  at  its  head,  the  warlike  preacher,  Andrew 
Knox.  In  August,  when  a  handful  of  200  rather  useless  Scottish 
soldiers  had  been  sent  to  aid  in  subduing  an  Irish  rebellion,  a 
force  of  English  soldiers  from  Ireland  joined  the  royal  levies 
at  Isla.  The  Irish  rebels  and  the  islanders  were  apt  to  work  into 
each  other's  hands,  hence  the  junction  of  Scots  with  recruits  from 
the  English  army  in  Ireland  to  guard  against  their  combinations. 
O'Dogherty's  rebellion  in  Ulster  having  been  put  down,  English  forces 
in  Ireland  were  free  to  deal  with  the  insular  Celts.^^  Meanwhile  the 
king  and  Council  were  occupied  with  plans  for  the  "  plantation  of 
Ulster  "  with  English  and  Scottish  settlers,  each  in  his  peel  or  tower, 
and  holding  lands  from  which  the  Irish  had  been  evicted.  On  the 
island  side,  the  castle  of  Dunyveg  in  Isla,  a  hold  of  the  Macdonalds, 
was  surrendered  and  garrisoned  for  the  Crown,  as  (August  17)  was 
the  Maclean  fortress  of  Dowart  in  Mull.  Ochiltree  held  a  durbar 
of  the  chiefs,  at  Aros  in  Mull,  and  received  them  into  the  king's 
peace,  or  pretended  to  do  so.  Next,  inviting  them  to  dinner  on 
board  his  vessel,  he  carried  them  off,  and  the  Council  warded  them 
in  Dumbarton,  Blackness,  and  Stirling,  much  as  the  Maxwells  had 
already  been   treated.     The  Macleods    of   Harris  and  the    Lewes 

VOL.   II,  2   L 


530  BAND   OF   ICOLMKILL. 

were  not  captured.  The  imprisoned  chiefs  capitulated,  and  in 
February  1609  a  large  body  of  commissioners  was  appointed  to 
deal  with  the  island  affairs. ^^  By  way  of  striking  terror,  that  old 
prisoner,  Sir  James  Macdonald,  son  of  Angus  of  Dunyveg,  and 
slayer  of  the  valiant  Maclean  of  Dowart,  was  tried  for  the  burning 
of  the  house  in  which  he  nearly  roasted  his  father,  and  for  his 
attempted  escape  from  the  Castle,  when  he  was  taken,  and  Lord 
Maxwell  got  free.  James,  we  know,  had  of  old  rather  favoured 
this  chief,  who  produced,  but  withdrew,  a  royal  warrant  for  the 
capture  of  his  father.  He  was  convicted,  and  sentenced  to  death 
and  forfeiture,  but  was  not  executed.  Six  years  later  he  succeeded 
in  escaping.  Possibly  it  was  not  thought  well  to  push  him  to 
extremities,  as  he  had  some  more  or  less  compromising  old 
document  of  the  king's. 

Meanwhile  the  Bishop  of  the  Isles  had  been  surveying  these 
territories  and  negotiating  with  the  natives.  In  July  he  met  the 
released  chiefs  and  others  at  lona  or  Icolmkill,  and  in  August 
the  Statutes  or  Band  of  Icolmkill  were  ratified.  The  great  chiefs, 
mainly  Macdonalds  and  Macleans,  professed  the  true  religion. 
and  obedience  to  the  king  and  the  laws  of  the  realm.  They 
vowed  that  they  would  respect  and  pay  the  stipends  of  ministers 
already  planted  or  to  be  planted,  repair  the  churches,  and  abandon 
the  custom  of  handfasting,  or  temporary  marriages.  Next  they 
denounced  the  custom  of  sorning,  or  forced  hospitality,  and 
ordained  that  inns  or  hostelries  should  be  established.  Each 
chief  bound  himself  to  harbour  and  entertain  only  a  small  fixed 
number  of  gentlemen.  Once  more  they  denounced  "  the  extra- 
ordinary drinking  of  strong  wines  and  aqua  vitce"  and  the  trafific 
in  these  comforts.  But  everybody  might  distil  his  own  whisky, 
so  that  the  cause  of  temperance  took  little  advantage.  Every 
gentleman  owning  sixty  cows  must  educate  his  eldest  child  in  the 
Lowlands.  Unlike  their  ancestors  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII., 
the  chiefs  at  Icolmkill  were  themselves  able  to  read  and  write. 
The  law  against  using  firearms  was  accepted.  Bards  and  other 
vagabonds  were  to  be  put  in  the  stocks,  or  expelled.^^ 

From  these  statutes  the  historian,  Dr  Gregory,  dates  the  loyalty 
of  the  Celts,  as  displayed  under  Charles  I.,  and  onwards,  we  may 
add,  to  the  last  Jacobite  rising.  But  perhaps  the  natural  attach- 
ment of  the  Celts  to  the  lost  cause,  with  the  chances  of  authorised 
raids  on  the  Lowlands,  and  loyalty  to  "the  Kirk  malignant,"  that 


LOCHIEL.  531 

of  Prelacy  or  of  Rome,  were  not  without  influence  on  the  later 
Highlanders.  Even  now  the  river  Sheil  and  Loch  Shell  are  the 
frontiers  of  Presbyterianism,  farther  north  is  a  large  Catholic 
district,  while  in  Glencoe,  and  Appin,  and  Lochaber  there  are 
Celtic  adherents  of  James's  Church,  the  Scottish  Episcopal.  Where 
the  modern  Celt  does  not  adhere  to  these  faiths  he  shows  a  strong 
tendency  to  beliefs  and  usages  like  those  of  the  austere  Presby- 
terians with  whom  James  VI.  was  always  at  war. 

Despite  the  submission  of  many  chiefs  the  affairs  of  the  Lewes 
remained  unsettled.  New  managers  and  adventurers — Balmerino, 
Sir  George  Hay,  and  Spans  of  Wormiston — had  undertaken  to 
settle  the  Lewes  in  1608.  But  Balmerino  was  disgraced  and 
imprisoned  on  the  old  affair  of  the  letter  to  the  Pope,  and  Hay 
and  Spens  were  thwarted  and  driven  out  of  the  island  by  the 
arms  of  Neil  Macleod,  and  the  intrigues  of  Mackenzie  of  Kintail. 
They  disposed  of  their  useless  concessions  to  this  chief,  who  drove 
out  or  reduced  the  Macleods  of  the  Lewes.  These  appearances 
of  quiet  and  order  were,  of  course,  delusive.  Many  great  chiefs 
made  solemn  promises.  The  Bishop  of  the  Isles  (Andrew  Knox) 
received  the  much  contested  Castle  Perilous,  Dunyveg  in  Isla, 
and  became  Stewart  and  Justice  for  the  Isles,  while  Lochiel  and 
Clanranald  were  joined  with  Argyll  in  the  ferocious  efforts  to 
exterminate  the  Macgregors,  a  task  for  which  the  other  clans  had 
no  heart. 

Disturbances  arose  from  a  discovery  casually  made  by  Argyll 
in  his  muniment  room.  As  far  back  as  the  reign  of  James  V.  the 
third  Earl  of  Argyll  had  procured,  through  Campbell  of  Calder, 
what  Calder  had  acquired  from  Maclean  of  Lochbuy  in  Mull,  title- 
deeds  to  certain  superiorities  over  the  lands  of  Lochiel,  Duror, 
and  Glencoe.  It  was  about  1527  that  Calder,  having  purchased 
these  rights  from  Lochbuy,  and  having  discovered  that  the 
Camerons,  Appin  Stewarts,  and  Macdonalds  or  Maclans  were 
hard  to  deal  with,  transferred  the  title-deeds  to  his  brother  Colin, 
third  Earl  of  Argyll.  The  claim  seems  to  have  been  forgotten 
for  some  eighty  years,  when  Argyll  happened  to  find  the  old 
documents,  and  got  a  new  charter  from  the  king.  The  man 
who  was  astonished  was  Lochiel,  but  he  consented  to  come  under 
Argyll's  superiority.  History  was  to  prove,  in  the  Civil  War,  and 
in  1715,  and  1745,  that  the  Argyll  suzerainty  was  but  the  shadow 
of  a  name.      Huntly,  who  had  regarded  Lochiel  as  his  man,  took 


532  GLEN    NEVIS   CAMERONS. 

umbrage,  and  seduced  away  from  Lochiel  the  Camerons  of 
Erracht  and  Glen  Nevis,  the  beautiful  valley  which  runs  up  the 
south-east  side  of  Ben  Nevis.  Even  after  the  Forty-Five  we 
still  find  the  Glen  Nevis  Camerons  (really  MacSorlies)  engaged 
against  Lochiel  and  Fassifern,  in  intrigues  so  dark  that  blushing 
History  averts  her  eyes,  and  leaves  the  gloomy  Celtic  secret  in 
the  Duke  of  Cumberland's  MSS.  Huntly's  Cameron  friends  were 
put  by  him  into  lands  which  Allan  Cameron  of  Lochiel  held 
either  from  Huntly  or  Argyll.  Lochiel  tried  to  negotiate  peace- 
fully with  the  intruders,  who  gave  a  verbal,  but  refused  a  written 
promise,  and  asked  Allan  to  come  with  them  to  meet  Huntly. 
Allan  mildly  put  the  motion  by ;  he  knew  what  Huntly  was  capable 
of,  and  he  rode  to  Edinburgh  to  take  legal  advice. 

In  Edinburgh  he  learned  that  "  his  friends  "  (kinsmen)  were  laying 
a  plot  against  the  life  of  their  chief.  He  heard  where  they  were  to 
meet,  hurried  back  to  Lochaber,  gathered  six  score  fellows  of  the 
right  sort,  and  placed  them  within  half  a  mile  of  the  scene  of  the 
hostile  gathering.  He  set  them  in  ambush  in  a  wood,  which  lay 
convenient,  and  then,  with  six  boys  of  the  belt,  strolled  towards  "his 
friends,"  asking  them  to  meet  him  with  other  six.  He  had  first 
instructed  his  ambushed  men  to  lie  still  if  all  went  well,  if  he  were 
attacked  he  would  fly  past  the  wood.  He  went  forward,  was  ill 
received,  and  fled  under  a  shower  of  arrows.  When  the  pursuers 
reached  the  wood,  Lochiel's  hundred  and  twenty  arose  from  the  cover 
of  birch,  and  rock,  and  bracken  ;  Allan  turned  and  stood  at  bay,  his 
men  fell  on  his  pursuers  from  the  rear,  slew  twenty,  took  eight  alive, 
and,  writes  James  Primrose,  Clerk  of  Council,  "  learned  a  lesson  to 
the  rest  of  his  kin  who  are  alive  in  what  form  they  shall  carry  them- 
selves to  their  chief  hereafter.*'  But  the  "  form  "  of  the  Glen  Nevis 
Camerons  continued  to  be  deplorable,  though  one  of  them  "died 
the  death  of  fame  "  at  CuUoden.^^ 

James  Primrose  tells  the  tale,  though  a  peaceful  man,  with  spirit 
and  sympathy.  However,  in  December  1613  the  Privy  Council 
most  unfeelingly  outlawed  the  brave  Lochiel,  and  gave  Huntly  a 
commission  of  fire  and  sword  against  him.  He  had  slain,  in  fair 
fight,  "the  Bodach  "  John  Cameron,  also  Allaster  of  Glen  Nevis, 
for  which  who  can  blame  him  ?  ^^  But  it  is  a  far  cry  to  Loch  Arkaig, 
and  Huntly  made  little  use  of  his  letters  of  fire  and  sword. 

A  disturbance  among  the  Macneils  of  Barra  and  the  Macleans 
was  characteristic.      Old  Barra  had  a  family  by  a   Maclean   lady,  to 


MACNEILS   AND   MACLEANS.  533 

whom  he  was  only  handfasted,  and  another  family  by  a  sister  of 
Clanranald,  to  whom  he  was  legally  married.  The  oldest  of  the 
senior  family  (Macleans  on  the  spindle  side)  was  arrested  by 
Clanranald  for  piracy  against  a  ship  from  Bordeaux.  He  was  help- 
ing himself  to  the  claret.  He  died  before  his  trial,  and  his  brothers, 
with  Maclean  of  Dowart,  seized  one  of  the  legitimate  family,  who 
happened  also  to  have  been  engaged  in  robbing  the  liquors  of 
Bordeaux.  He  was  sent  to  Edinburgh  to  be  tried,  but  was  acquitted, 
thanks  to  Clanranald.  The  brethren  of  the  elder  (Maclean)  but 
illegitimate  family  of  old  Barra  now  seized  that  chief,  their  father, 
and  put  him  in  irons.  The  Council  therefore  gave  Clanranald 
letters  of  fire  and  sword  against  these  "  lymmars  "  in  their  island. 
The  result  was  the  succession  of  one  of  the  legal  branch,  Clan- 
ranald's  nephew,  to  old  Barra,  who  did  not  long  survive  his  severe 
imprisonment  by  his  sons.^^ 

Old  Angus  of  Dunyveg,  father  of  the  now  imprisoned  Sir  James 
Macdonald,  died,  and  Sir  Ranald,  Sir  James's  brother,  succeeded  in 
Isla.  He  must  have  been  an  ill-advised  man,  for  he  tried  to  intro- 
duce "  the  Irish  laws,"  the  Brehon  laws  and  customs  of  land  tenure, 
probably.^'^  It  is  not  surprising  to  hear  that  the  Bishop  of  the  Isles 
was  not  long  permitted  to  retain  Dunyveg  Castle,  which  was  but 
slenderly  garrisoned.  Old  Angus  had  left  a  bastard,  Ranald  Oig, 
who  suddenly  seized  the  fortress  early  in  16 14.  Thereon  Angus  Oig, 
a  younger  brother  of  the  imprisoned  Sir  James,  set  about  recovering 
the  castle  "for  the  king."  His  kinsman  Left-handed  Coll  (Coll 
Keitache,  "  Colkitto  ")  succeeded  in  taking  the  place.  Ranald  Oig 
escaped  by  sea,  and  Angus  retained  the  castle,  offering  to  restore  it 
to  the  Bishop  of  the  Isles  on  conditions.  The  Council  bade  him 
surrender  under  pain  of  rebellion,  and  told  the  warlike  prelate  to 
seize  the  place.  The  bishop  preferred  to  negotiate,  then  approached 
in  force,  but  was  deserted  by  his  Celtic  levies,  and  had  to  see  his 
boats  destroyed  by  Angus  Oig.  With  Angus  the  bishop  had  to 
make  terms,  he  would  endeavour  to  get  for  him  a  lease  of  the  Crown 
land,  held  in  Isla  by  Sir  Ranald,  and  he  left,  as  hostages,  his  son 
Thomas,  and  his  nephew  John  Knox.  His  letters  reached  the 
Council  on  October  i,  1614.^^  The  Council  was  heartlessly  indiffer- 
ent to  the  fate  of  John  and  Thomas.  They  gave  a  commission  to 
Campbell  of  Calder  to  subdue  Isla  ;  for  which,  when  he  had  reduced 
it,  he  was  to  pay  a  rent.  But  Argyll,  if  we  can  believe  the  bishop, 
had  iiecn  encouraging  Angus  to  hold  out.^^     It  may  be  remarked 


534  ESCAPE   OF   DUNLUCE. 

that,  whenever  the  Macgregors  or  Macdonalds  did  anything  especially 
lawless,  they  always  said  "  Argyll  told  us  to  do  it."  If  so,  they 
ought,  of  course,  to  have  found  out  this  policy  of  the  house  of 
Argyll.  But  "  these  unhallowed  people  with  that  unchristian  tongue  " 
(so  Sir  Alexander  Hay  calls  them  in  1615)  were  either  innocent  as 
doves,  so  that  Argyll  could  always  take  them  with  the  same  chaff,  or 
they  were  not  remarkably  veracious. 

Meanwhile  Angus  Oig  made  life  a  burden  to  John  and  Thomas 
Knox,  and  the  bishop  was  much  annoyed  and  distressed.  Why  put 
in  the  Campbells,  he  asked,  a  clan  hardly  less  "  pestiferous  "  than 
the  Macdonalds  themselves?  Presently  Angus  relieved  Thomas 
and  John,  understanding  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  keep  Dunyveg 
Castle.  Royal  forces  from  Ireland,  however,  arrived  to  demand  its 
surrender.  In  January  16 15  Calder  joined  the  Irish  contingent, 
and  artillery  began  its  work.  A  number  of  the  garrison  were  hanged. 
Left-handed  Coll  escaped,  Angus  Oig  was  taken  to  Edinburgh. 
They  had  scarcely  arrived,  or  had  not  yet  arrived,  when  that  old 
prisoner,  Sir  James  of  Dunluce,  who  slew  the  great  Lachlan  Maclean 
of  Dowart,  escaped  from  the  Castle  (May  24).  Keppoch,  the  young 
Clanranald,  and  Dougal  Macallester  (who  was  in  a  writer's  office) 
managed  the  escape  ;  Sir  James  made  for  the  Firth  of  Forth,  crossed, 
and  got  clean  away.  He  was  nearly  taken,  in  Atholl,  by  TuUibar- 
dine's  men,  but  fled  by  speed  of  foot.  He  wrote  interesting  letters 
to  Lord  Crauford  and  others,  protesting  that  he  had  only  broken 
ward  because  he  heard  that  Calder  had  a  warrant  for  his  death,  and 
asking  that  his  books  might  be  returned  to  him.  They  were  seized 
with  his  baggage  in  Atholl,  One  book  was  "  The  Three  Conversions 
of  England,"  and  a  manuscript  "  Great  Chronicle."  Once  arrived  in 
Keppoch's  country  books  were  scarce,  but  liberty  was  secured.  Sir 
James  sailed  to  Eig,  and  was  welcomed  by  Coll  the  left-handed,  with 
a  strong  force  of  Macdonalds,  who  fired  their  muskets  to  honour 
the  chief.  They  next  sailed  to  Isla  and  took  Dunyveg.  First  they 
ambushed  till  the  captain  with  a  small  party  came  out,  then  attacked 
them,  killing  some,  but  the  captain  escaped  into  the  castle.  This 
they  besieged,  and  soon  compelled  a  surrender,  "  all  the  Campbells 
in  Scotland,  without  his  majesty's  power,  shall  not  recover  it  as  long 
as  they  live "  (July  3).^*^  Sir  James  now  intended  to  reduce  Kin- 
tyre  and  Jura  to  his  subjection. 

Sir  James,  in  brief,  was  rehearsing,  on  a  small  scale.  Napoleon's 
escape  from  Elba,  and  recovering  the  dominions  of  his  house  which 


ARGYLL   RECOVERS   KINTYRE   AND   ISLA.  535 

the  Campbells  had  annexed.  All  this  while  Argyll  was  away  from 
home  in  fear  of  his  creditors.  But  in  August  Argyll  came  down  ; 
he  was  amply  supplied  with  "  waged  men  "  and  ammunition  by  the 
Government.  Attacking  the  slender  peninsula  of  Kintyre,  where 
Sir  James  was,  on  both  sides  from  the  sea,  Argyll  drove  the  Mac- 
donalds  out,  and  followed  Sir  James  to  Isla,  where  he  had  two  new 
fortresses.  He  drove  the  Macdonald  strategist  out  to  an  island  on 
the  Irish  coast ;  Left-handed  Coll  surrendered  in  Isla,  he  betrayed  a 
number  of  his  allies ;  the  other  Celts  began  to  follow  his  example. 
Argyll  now  returned  to  Kintyre,  and  reduced  the  remnant  of  the 
Macdonalds  there,  while  Sir  James  fled  from  Ireland  to  Spain  ;  in 
fact,  most  of  the  leaders  remained  at  large.  Arg^'ll  very  patriotically 
kept  the  waged  men  for  six  weeks  at  his  own  expense,  and  he  had 
now  put  down  for  ever  the  Macdonald  revolt  in  the  south-western 
Highlands,  Isla,  and  Kintyre.  He  left  "ragged  ends"  of  the  task 
to  be  trimmed,  but  his  Scottish  creditors  were  pressing  him  hard, 
and  he  returned  to  his  English  and  Catholic  wife,  who  presently 
converted  him  from  the  errors  of  the  Kirk,  so  that  he  was  obliged  to 
go  into  exile  on  the  Continent. 

His  son  was  the  celebrated  Gillespie  Grumach,  "gleyed-eyed 
Argyll,"  who  burned  the  Bonnie  House  o'  Airlie,  was  the  foe  of  the 
great  Montrose,  and  lost  his  head  at  the  Restoration.  This  dis- 
tinguished Presbyterian  leader  appears,  from  his  portrait,  to  have 
been  by  no  means  so  gnimach  or  "  gleyed  "  as  tradition  avers.  Sir 
James  dwelt  abroad  for  ten  years,  and  ended  his  days  among  his 
beloved  books  in  England. 

The  chiefs  of  the  old  Icolmkill  statutes  now  renewed  their 
declaration  against  imported  wines  and  in  favour  of  education.  On 
the  whole  the  result  was  the  relative  tranquillity  of  Kintyre  and  Isla, 
and  the  increase  of  the  Campbell  power  (which  henceforth  was 
Whig),  at  the  expense  of  the  Macdonalds. 

These  movements  in  the  tiny  outlying  Celtic  principalities  were 
not  really  unimportant.  More  than  once  in  later  national  history 
the  preponderance  of  the  Campbells  over  the  Macdonalds  and 
Macleans  turned  the  delicately  poised  scales  of  fortune  in  favour 
of  the  Kirk  or  of  the  house  of  Hanover  as  against  the  Stuart 
dynasty.  The  measures  taken  for  quieting  the  Highlands  and  Isles 
included  a  system  of  bands  among  the  Inchcolme  chiefs,  as  they 
may  be  called,  guaranteeing  the  good  behaviour  of  their  clans. 
The   chiefs   themselves   (including   Clanranald,   and  the    MacLean 


536  QUIETING   OF   THE   HIGHLANDS. 

representatives)  were  to  make  an  appearance  annually  before  the 
Council  in  Edinburgh,  and  were  also  to  "  exhibit "  some  of  the 
most  potent  cadets  of  their  houses.  The  old  rules  against  "  sorners," 
men  living  at  free  quarters,  were  enforced.  Probably  these  were 
muscular  idlers,  of  course  of  good  family,  who  were  supported  by 
their  hosts,  now  as  useful  fighters,  now  as  kinsmen,  now  from 
timidity,  while  the  ancient  Celtic  custom  which  entitled  chiefs, 
tanists,  bards,  and  others  to  free  entertainment  gave  a  kind  of 
sanction  to  the  usage.  The  chiefs  were  bidden  to  reside  per- 
manently at  different  residences  of  theirs,  and  to  cultivate  home 
farms — partly  to  give  their  idle  hands  something  other  than  mischief 
to  do,  partly  as  an  example  of  industry. 

The  Celt  is  naturally,  or  then  was,  rather  in  the  pastoral  than  the 
agricultural  stage  of  civilisation.  To  keep  the  kye,  hunt  the  deer,  and 
watch  the  eternal  and  beautiful  passage  of  light  and  shade  on  the  hills, 
the  lochs,  and  the  sea,  was  more  congenial  than  to  dig  and  plough 
an  ungrateful  soil.  To  counteract  these  sympathetic  tendencies  of 
children  of  nature,  the  chiefs  promised  to  take  home  farms,  or  "mains," 
into  their  own  hands.  ("Mains"  is  common  in  Lowland  place-names, 
as  "  Branxholme  Mains,"  the  "  toun  "  or  farm  on  the  hillside  above 
Branxholme  Tower.)  An  attempt  was  made  (1616)  to  enforce  fixed 
rents  in  place  of  all  the  many  forms  of  service,  in  agriculture  and  in 
war,  which  of  old  had  existed  in  England  and  the  Lowlands,  as  well 
as  in  the  Highlands.  But  the  ancient  system  continued  to  flourish, 
especially  in  Knoydart  and  Moydart,  till  the  great  epoch  of  change 
after  1745.  The  rules  as  to  education  and  importation  of  foreign 
wines  were  re-enacted.  The  practice  of  taking  "  calps,"  or  heriots, 
"  the  best  beast,"  after  the  death  of  a  tenant  was  denounced.  They 
who  have  the  power — church,  chief,  or  democracy- — usually  think  that 
the  death  of  a  man,  which  impoverishes  his  family,  gives  a  happy 
opportunity  to  add  to  their  distress  by  taxation. 

The  affairs  of  Lochiel,  still  an  outlaw  for  the  lesson  he  read  to 
the  Glen  Nevis  Camerons,  were  complicated  by  a  dispute  with  the 
Mackintoshes  about  certain  lands.  This  matter  provided  a  good 
running  feud,  in  which  occurred  that  slaughter  of  the  Mackintosh 
branch  of  Clan  Chattan  which  caused  the  saying,  "Cat-skins  are 
cheap  to-day."  Lochiel,  at  considerable  cost,  reconciled  himself  to 
Huntly  by  a  cession  of  the  superiority  over  certain  estates,  but,  as 
late  as  1720,  the  exiled  James  VIIL  had  to  settle  a  feud  between  the 
Gordons  and  Camerons  which  grew  up  out  of  this  arrangement. 


ORKNEY.  537 

The  outlawed  Keppoch,  for  his  part,  joined  Sir  James  Macdonald 
in  Spain,  whither  (1618)  the  now  CathoUc  Argyll  had  also  wan- 
dered. In  his  absence  the  chiefship  of  the  Campbells  was  put  in 
commission — Lundy,  Lochnell,  Ardkinglas,  Kilberry,  and  others 
being  the  managers.  Among  them  was  Macdonald  of  Largie,  in 
Kintyre,  one  of  the  few  Macdonalds  whose  representative  still 
retains  the  ancient  property  in  Kintyre.  Argyll  having  been  per- 
verted, Sir  James  Macdonald  and  Keppoch  were  recalled  from 
Spain  by  the  king;  Sir  James  died  in  London  (1626),  Keppoch 
was  permitted  to  go  home.  The  Maclans  of  Ardnamurchan,  hard 
pressed  by  the  Campbells,  took  to  piracy,  but  were  put  down  by 
that  son  of  Argyll,  Lord  Lome,  who  was  afterwards  the  famous 
Presbyterian  Argyll,  Gillespie  Grumach  (1625). 

At  the  time  of  the  death  of  James  VI.,  when  our  volume  closes, 
the  northern  and  island  branches  of  the  House  of  Somerled,  the 
Macdonalds  of  Sleat,  Glengarry,  and  Clanranald,  with  the  Camp- 
bells, were  the  most  powerful  Highland  clans,  while  the  Mackintoshes 
held  more  sway  than  the  elder  Clan  Vourich  (Macphersons)  over 
the  septs  of  Clan  Chattan.  The  troubles  of  the  reign  of  Charles  I. 
and  the  Restoration  alternately  elevated  or  depressed  the  Campbells 
and  the  Macdonalds. 

A  most  disturbed  district  of  the  realm  lay  in  the  remote  domains 
of  the  Earl  of  Orkney.  The  Earl  was  a  son  of  that  Lord  Robert 
Stewart,  commendator  of  Holyrood,  who  had  vainly  warned  Darnley 
to  fly  from  Kirk  o'  Field,  vainly  admonished  Morton  to  escape  his 
impending  doom.  This  Lord  Robert  was  a  natural  son  of  James  V., 
a  natural  brother  of  Queen  Mary,  so  that  his  son,  the  Earl  of 
Orkney,  was  no  distant  cousin  of  the  king.  He  seemed  to  derive 
his  genius  from  a  far  more  distant  collateral,  the  famous  Wolf  of 
Badenoch.  He  dwelt  in  great  pomp  at  Kirkwall,  with  a  regular 
guard  of  musketeers,  which  his  sovereign  might  have  envied  ;  he  had 
a  fleet,  and  his  oppressions  are  said  to  have  been  exercised  "  under 
a  shadow  of  the  Danish  law."  The  bishop  expected  to  keep  him  in 
order  was  Law,  who,  in  his  day,  had  trouble  with  the  impetuous 
and  learned  Calderwood,  the  preacher  and  historian.  By  1608  the 
Earl  had  been  "  put  to  the  horn,"  for  which  he  cared  very  little,  on 
account  of  his  oppressions.  James  rebuked  the  Council  for  not 
being  energetic  in  the  matter  in  1608.-^  They  replied  that,  as 
James  knew,  "  they  had  no  forces  to  send  to  Orkney  "  to  make  the 
said  Earl  conformable.      He  was  only  at  the  horn  for  a  civil  cause. 


538        EXECUTION    OF   THE   EARL   OF   ORKNEY   (1615). 

James  made  it  criminal  in  case  the  Earl  did  not  appear  before 
them  in  March  1609.  The  Earl  did  appear,  and  was  warded  in 
Edinburgh  Castle,  July  1609.^^  But  he  had  left  kinsmen  in  Orkney  as 
unruly  as  himself,  while  only  less  trouble  was  given  by  his  neighbour 
and  feudal  enemy,  the  Earl  of  Caithness.  In  January  161  o,  Law, 
as  bishop,  had  received  a  commission  like  that  of  Bishop  Knox  in 
the  Western  Isles.  The  Earl  made  plausible  offers,  which  were 
rejected  ;  his  brother  James  and  other  kinsmen  were  apprehended. 
Things  did  no^:  improve ;  to  cut  the  Earl  off  from  communications 
with  his  people  he  was  confined  to  his  chamber  in  the  Castle,  and 
was  very  destitute.  In  May  161 1  the  Danish  laws  in  Orkney  were 
abrogated  by  proclamation,  and  the  Earl's  deputies  were  dismissed. 
At  the  end  of  August  he  was  allowed  to  dwell,  under  heavy  caution, 
within  four  miles  of  Edinburgh.  Meanwhile  Bishop  Law  had  been 
doing  his  best  in  Orkney,  but  Robert  Stewart,  bastard  of  the  Earl, 
had  proclaimed  his  own  authority  as  soon  as  the  bishop's  back  was 
turned. 

On  December  6,  161 1,  the  Privy  Council  considered  the  griev- 
ances of  the  Orcadians.  They  were,  it  seems,  forbidden  to  help 
shipwrecked  vessels, — no  great  hardship  to  wreckers, — to  carry  law 
cases  beyond  the  island  courts,  to  cross  ferries  without  a  passport, 
and  were  subject  to  capricious  confiscations.  These  ill  customs 
were  to  be  abrogated. ^^  In  February  1 6 1 2  thfe  Earl  was  removed  to 
Dumbarton  Castle,  and  in  October  Parliament  annexed  the  lands 
of  Orkney  to  the  Crown.  Law  was  appointed  administrator.  In 
January  16 13  Robert  Stewart,  the  Earl's  bastard,  promised  never  to 
return  to  Orkney.  By  May  16 14  he  had  broken  parole,  and  was 
setting  the  heather  on  fire  in  the  islands.  In  August  the  Earl  of 
Caithness  was  empowered  to  restore  order,  and  appeared  with  ships 
and  guns  before  Kirkwall.  The  siege  lasted  till  the  end  of  Sep- 
tember, when  the  place  surrendered ;  the  walls  were  strong,  the 
cannon  balls  of  the  besiegers  "were  broken  like  golf  balls,  and 
cloven  in  two  halfs,"  writes  Caithness.  Robert  Stewart  was  removed 
to  Edinburgh.  He  was  tall,  handsome,  and  only  twenty-two,  so  he 
had  public  sympathy  at  his  trial  (January  5,  16 15). 

Some  of  the  retainers  of  Caithness  were  on  the  jury  ;  many  of  the 
others  were  burgesses  of  Edinburgh.  They  unanimously  found 
Stewart  and  his  associates  guilty,  and  the  men  were  hanged.  A  month 
later  the  Earl  was  tried  for  collusion  with  his  son,  convicted,  and 
beheaded.     The  names  of  the  associates  of  Robert  Stewart  are  Low- 


NOTES.  539 

land,  unless  Halcro  be  Scandinavian.  The  destroyer  of  the  Earl, 
Caithness  (a  Sinclair)  had  himself  betrayed  his  kinsman,  the  Lord 
Maxwell  who  murdered  the  Laird  of  Johnston  under  trust,  and  was  a 
notorious  ruffian.  He  later  tried  to  drive  the  Forbeses  out  of  Caithness 
by  destroying  their  crops,  and  was  a  kind  of  land  pirate.  He  lost  the 
sheriffship  of  Caithness,  and  a  warrant  to  pursue  him  was  granted  to 
his  own  son.  Calderwood  seems  to  grudge  at  the  execution  of  the 
Earl  of  Orkney,  who,  he  says,  did  not  even  know  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
But  Calderwood  never,  perhaps,  approved  of  any  measure  of  James, 
and  public  sentiment,  in  all  classes,  was  averse  to  capital  punish- 
ment when  it  was  richly  deserved  by  a  noble.  The  plan  was  now 
to  revile  James  for  not  punishing  violence,  now  to  rail  at  him  when 
he  did.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  "  Earl  Pate  "  was  an  ambitious 
tyrant,  with  dreams,  perhaps,  of  a  separate  principality.  The 
Orcadians  were  a  peaceful  people,  probably  they  were  as  much 
wronged  by  Caithness  as  by  their  Earl,  but  they  disliked  "  foreigners  " 
— officials  brought  in  by  the  central  Government.  Their  old 
Scandinavian  tenures  and  habits  of  wrecking  were  disturbed,  and 
we  receive  the  impression  that  the  Claud  Halcros  were  for  the  Earl, 
and  that  the  complainers  against  his  rule  may  have  been  the  Yellow- 
leeses  (to  cite  examples  from  "  The  Pirate ")  of  the  period.  But 
perhaps  older  Lowland  settlers,  who  called  themselves  "  The  Gentle- 
men of  Orkney,"  had  become  fond  of  Scandinavian  institutions. 
They  are  Douglases,  Grays,  Sinclairs,  Mowats,  Gordons,  with  only 
Halcro,  who  was  pardoned,  to  represent  a  Norse  element.  But,  of 
200  who  signed  the  Band  with  Robert  Stewart,  only  seventeen 
names,  including  initials,  are  given. ^■^  Whatever  the  rights  and 
wrongs  of  the  natives,  the  question  of  Orkney  was  settled.  Later 
the  Orcadians  gave  very  weak  support  to  the  great  Montrose  in  his 
final  fight  and  defeat. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    XX. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  vol.  vii.  viii. 

2  Pitcairn,  iii.  28-52,  the  Trials  of  Maxwell.    The  details  are  in  the  "Tales  of  a 
Grandfather. " 
^  Pitcairn,  iii.  pp.  4,  5. 
*  Privy  Council  Register,  vi.  pp.  8-10. 


540  NOTES. 

^  Privy  Council  Register,  vi.  pp.  24,  25. 

6  Thorpe,  ii.  784. 

"^  Pitcairn,  ii.  pp.  431,  432. 

^  In  the  Privy  Council  Register,  viii.  p.  219,  is  a  note  of  January  5,  1609, 
charging  Maclan  of  Glencoe  with  the  murder  at  Glenfruin  of  forty  poor  persons 
"  with  his  own  hand."     This  is  cited  by  Pitcairn,  ii.  p.  431. 

^  Pitcairn,  ii.  434,  citing  Erslvine,  Birrel's  Diary,  and  Caldervvood.  Birrel  calls 
this  a  "a  Hielandman's  promise." 

^^  Privy  Council  Register,  vi.  558,  note. 

"  Privy  Council  Register,  viii.  Ixxviii.  Ixxix. 

12  Privy  Council  Register,  viii.  742  ct  sei/. 

13  Privy  Council  Register,  ix.  26-30. 

14  Privy  Council  Register,  x.  (1613),  819,  820. 

15  Privy  Council  Register,  x.  186- 191. 

^^  James  Primrose,  n^  supra  ;    Gregory,  pp.  346,  347. 

■•"  James  Primrose,  ui  supra. 

18  Privy  Council  Register,  x.  715. 

13  Gregory,  p.  354. 

"^  Pitcairn,  iii.  17,  18. 

21  Privy  Council  Register,  viii.  529,  531. 

22  Privy  Council  Register,  viii.  p.  312. 
^  Privy  Council  Register,  ix.  297. 

^  Pitcairn,  iii.  293,  294. 


541 


CHAPTER   XXI. 


SOCIAL    CONDITIONS. 


Some  idea  of  the  social  condition  of  Scotland  may  have  been 
gathered  from  the  pages  of  its  general  history.  It  could  not 
be  called  happy,  if  compared  with  that  of  England.  From  the 
Orkneys  to  the  Oykel,  one  set  of  feuds  was  raging  ;  others  were 
active  from  the  Lewes  to  Kintyre ;  others  from  the  Borders  to 
Peebles,  Hawick,  and  Biggar.  Where  there  happened  to  be  no 
great  feud,  involving  every  family  of  the  gentry,  the  minor  lairds 
were  fighting  among  themselves.  There  were  constant  sieges  and 
burnings  of  houses,  from  the  great  castle  to  the  little  peel  tower. 
Gentlemen  who  could  not  easily  come  at  each  other  in  the  country, 
where  every  man  of  note  rode  with  a  company  of  steel-clad 
horsemen,  would  meet  in  Edinburgh,  in  silks  and  satins,  and  fight 
it  out  with  swords  and  pistols,  or  simply  assassinate  each  other 
without  warning.  Long  after  Douglas  of  Parkhead  speared  Captain 
James  Stewart  in  the  lonely  vale  of  Catslack,  he  was  himself 
stabbed  in  the  back,  near  the  Cross  of  Edinburgh,  by  a  Stewart  of 
Arran's  kin  (July  1608).  This  was  a  scene  in  the  long  vendetta  of 
Lord  Ochiltree  against  the  house  of  Torthorwald,  Parkhead  having 
married  an  heiress  of  the  Carlyles,  and  so  obtained  the  Torthor- 
wald title. 

In  the  volume  of  the  "Privy  Council  Register"  for  16 13,  ten 
years  after  James  ascended  the  throne  of  England,  we  have  a 
list  of  running  feuds.  There  are  forty-two  feuds,  exclusive  of 
the  Highlands  and  Islands,  and  these  are  not  feuds  of  the  sweep- 
ing character  of  Huntly  versus  Argyll,  or  Stewart  versus  Hamilton. 
For  example,  we  have  a  feud  between  Ker  of  Yair,  on  Tweed 
below  Elibank,  and  the  small  but  warlike  burgh  of  Selkirk.  From 
Selkirk  to  the  pleasant  house  of  Yair  is  about  three  miles  across 


542  FEUDS. 

the  hills,  and  the  common  land  of  the  burgh  "marches"  with  Yair 
(the  author  conceives)  on  the  Linglee.  The  provost  and  burgesses 
yearly  "  rode  their  marches  "  in  a  festive  manner,  as  they  still  do,  but 
Andrew  Ker,  thinking  that  they  trespassed  on  his  heather,  planned 
to  lie  in  wait  for  the  citizens,  "where  upon  some  inconvenients 
will  not  fail  to  fall  out,"  as  the  Privy  Council  observed  (1613). 
The  Council  tried  to  smooth  matters  down,  vainly.  The  people 
of  Selkirk  had,  and  probably  have  a  common  herdsman  to  look 
after  the  kye  of  the  burgesses  on  the  common,  as  the  citizens  of 
Glasgow  also  used  at  this  period.  This  herdsman,  and  several 
citizens,  vi  et  armis  took  300  cattle,  and  pastured  them  on  the 
lands  of  Yair.  The  usual  repartee  was  to  hough  the  cattle,  but 
Ker  of  Yair  does  not  seem  to  have  adopted  this  course. 

The  provost  of  Selkirk  was  not  a  man  of  mild  measures.  In 
August  1 613  he  was  Scott  of  Haining,  the  estate  lying  just  out- 
side the  town.  He  was  "  kinsman  of  the  bold  Buccleuch,"  and 
his  deputy  on  the  Border  at  the  time  of  Kinmont  Willie.  This 
gentleman  arrested  a  woman  and  her  son,  from  Leith,  on  sus- 
picion of  stealing  cheese,  and  tortured  them  with  cords,  "  for  moving 
of  them  to  confess  the  truth."  Haining  was  let  off  for  this  outrage 
on  paying  a  small  fine.  The  burghs  at  this  time  preferred  to 
elect  country  gentlemen  as  their  provosts,  to  secure  leadership 
in  private  war,  and  the  backing  of  a  clan.  The  Yair  and  Selkirk 
feud  was  a  branch  of  the  old  Scott  and  Ker  feud,  and  thus  things 
were  so  arranged  that  simple  burgesses  had  their  share  of  the 
universal  fighting,  beyond  what  they  could  get  by  merely  "  whin- 
gering  "  each  other  in  the  market-place,  as  in  the  case  of  Provost 
Dickson  of  Peebles.  We  even  find  a  "  sometime  minister " 
entering  a  house  in  full  armour,  and  beginning  to  shoot  with 
pistol  and  musket.  There  were  feuds  within  clans,  as  of  Ker  of 
Grange  and  Ker  of  Ancrum.  In  Galloway  matters  passed  busily, 
Gordon  of  Lochinvar  having  a  feud  with  Kennedy  of  Bargany 
and  Vaus  of  Longcastle.  Even  in  civilised  Fife,  the  focus  of 
godliness,  Lundie  of  Lundie  was  at  war  with  Wood  of  Largo. 

A  feud  which  was  remarked  on,  even  at  that  time,  as  exemplary, 
was  the  Auchendrane  affair.  In  1597  John  Mure  of  Auchendrane, 
in  Ayrshire,  was  a  gentleman  much  looked  up  to  in  the  district  for 
the  fairness  and  sagacity  of  his  judicial  decisions  as  bailie  of  Carrick. 
He  had  married  a  daughter  of  Kennedy  of  Bargany,  who  was  on  ill 
terms  with  Kennedy  of  Colzean.     Auchendrane  was  also  dissatisfied 


THE   AUCHENDRANE   MURDERS.  543 

with  Colzean,  and  so  was  the  Master  of  Kennedy,  brother  of  Lord 
Cassilis,  the  head  of  the  Kennedys.  Auchendrane,  the  Master, 
and  the  Laird  of  Dunduff,  therefore,  made  up  their  minds  to  have 
the  blood  of  Colzean.  We  need  not  enter  into  the  merits  of  the 
quarrel.  On  New  Year's  day,  1597,  Colzean  was  to  dine,  in  the 
town  of  Maybole,  with  Sir  Thomas  Nisbet,  and  was  to  sleep  in  his 
own  lodgings.  Knowing  this,  Auchendrane  with  a  party  of  friends 
hid  among  the  trees  in  Nisbet's  garden,  and,  when  Colzean  was 
walking  through  to  his  rooms,  they  fired  a  volley  at  him,  missed 
him,  hunted  him  vainly,  and  attacked  his  lodgings.  Colzean,  there- 
fore, took  proceedings  against  Auchendrane  with  such  vigour  that 
he  was  alarmed,  made  peace,  and  married  his  eldest  son  to 
Colzean's  daughter.  Before  this,  however,  Colzean  had  wrecked 
Auchendrane's  house  and  garden,  which,  it  is  to  be  feared,  rankled 
in  his  mind. 

In  May  1602  Colzean  was  going  to  Edinburgh  on  legal  business. 
Anxious  to  oblige,  he  sent  a  retainer  to  Auchendrane,  asking  the 
laird  to  meet  him,  if  he  had  any  affairs  which  Colzean  could  trans- 
act for  him  in  the  capital.  If  so,  the  laird  would  find  him  next 
day  at  Duppie,  near  Ayr.  The  servant  missed  the  laird,  who  was 
absent  from  home.  He  therefore  asked  Mr  Robert  Mure,  the 
schoolmaster  at  Maybole,  to  write  the  message  in  a  letter  to  the 
laird.  Mure  complied,  and  sent  the  letter  by  a  schoolboy,  William 
Dalrymple.  The  laird  was  found  with  Mure  of  Cloncaird,  and  on 
reading  the  letter  he  bade  the  boy  carry  it  back  and  say  that  he  had 
not  found  Auchendrane  at  his  house.  He  and  Cloncaird  then 
summoned  a  few  friends  of  the  right  sort,  lay  in  wait  where  Colzean 
was  to  pass  (as  he  had  informed  Auchendrane),  and  found  him 
riding  with  only  one  servant.  They  slew  Colzean  with  swords  and 
pistols,  and  took  1000  merks  in  gold,  his  gold  buttons,  and  the 
rings  which  he  wore. 

This  incident  was  only  part  of  a  very  flourishing  feud,  in  which 
Auchendrane  induced  young  Kennedy  of  Bargany  to  try  to  destroy 
the  house  of  Cassilis,  of  which  he  was  the  senior  cadet.  Bargany, 
consequently,  had  ridden  past  Cassilis's  gate  without  making  a  call. 
The  Earl,  "  resolving  to  die  rather  than  digest  that  public  indignity," 
assembled  two  or  three  hundred  of  his  friends  in  arms.  Bargany 
also  raised  a  force,  and  attacked  Cassilis,  whose  men  lay  in  cover, 
their  front  protected  by  ditches.  In  attempting  a  charge,  poor 
young   Bargany  was  shot,  and  Auchendrane,   advancing  with  great 


544  CAPTURE   OF   AUCHENDRANE. 

intrepidity,  was  severely  wounded.  It  is  believed  that  his  failure 
after  this  to  shoot  the  Earl  of  Cassilis  irritated  him,  and 
induced  him  to  murder  Colzean,  as  has  already  been  narrated. 
His  retainers,  who  took  part  in  that  exploit,  were  outlawed, 
but  the  laird  boldly  offered  himself  for  trial.  Evidence  was 
lacking,  and  Auchendrane's  offer  of  trial  by  combat  was  not 
taken  up  by  any  of  the  kinsmen  of  Colzean.  But  a  dangerous 
witness  was  Dalrymple,  the  schoolboy  who  had  carried  Colzean's 
letter  informing  Auchendrane  that  he  was  to  be  at  the  place  where 
the  laird  murdered  and  robbed  him.  Young  Colzean  was  known 
to  be  interrogating  this  lad,  whom  Auchendrane  therefore  first 
immured,  and  then  sent  to  Arran,  afterwards  packing  him  off  to  fight 
under  Buccleuch's  colours  in  the  Low  Countries.  Six  years  later 
"the  eye  of  God  conveyed  Dalrymple  back  to  Ayr."  The  laird 
then  bade  one  Bannatyne  bring  Dalrymple  to  him,  at  night,  on  the 
sands  of  Girvan,  where  young  Auchendrane  strangled  the  lad,  and 
tried  to  bury  him  in  the  sands.  The  water  frustrating  this  pur- 
pose they  threw  the  corpse  into  the  sea,  whence,  a  few  days  later, 
it  was  cast  up  on  shore  and  recognised. 

As  this  darkling  and  cruel  murder,  if  brought  home  to  the 
Auchendranes,  was  of  a  type  reckoned  discreditable,  the  Auchen- 
dranes  were  advised  by  friends  to  commit  some  ordinary  crime,  and 
fly  the  country  on  the  strength  of  that  misdeed.  "  It  was  fitter 
they  should  kill  Hew  Kennedy  of  Garrishorn  "  (a  retainer  of  Cassilis), 
"for  divers  probable  quarrels  which  they  had  against  him."  This 
was  the  advice  of  a  cousin,  and  Auchendrane  recognised  that  it  was 
both  kindly  meant  and,  in  effect,  judicious.  Any  trouble  caused 
by  the  murder  of  Hew  was  such  as  their  kindred  could  sympathise 
with,  openly  abetting  and  sheltering  them.  The  Auchendranes, 
therefore,  armed  themselves  with  sword  and  pistol,  and,  finding 
Hew  alone,  attacked  him.  However,  Hew  nearly  cut  off 
young  Auchendrane's  hand,  and  was  victor  in  the  engagement. 
The  wisdom  of  the  king  now  gave  Lord  Abercorn  a  commission  to 
apprehend  ,old  Auchendrane,  who  shipped  Bannatyne,  the  witness  to 
the  Dalr}'mple  murder,  off  to  Ireland.  He  then  went  boldly  to  his 
trial,  but  failed  under  examination.  James  now  ordered  torture  to 
be  applied  to  young  Auchendrane,  who,  with  extraordinary  fortitude, 
was  silent.  Public  opinion,  naturally,  was  now  favourable  to  young 
Auchendrane.  After  all,  on  the  worst  view,  he  had  done  nothing, 
it  was  said,  to  harm  "the  person  or  estate  of  the  king."     He  ought 


SYMPATHY   WITH   CRIMINALS.  545 

to  be  released  on  heavy  bail.  But,  though  the  Privy  Council  pled 
for  this,  Dunfermline,  backed  by  the  king,  was  firm,  and  kept  the 
accused  in  prison  by  sheer  use  of  the  royal  prerogative.  The  king 
"  may  retain  in  ward  any  of  his  subjects,  who  in  his  conscience  he 
knows  deserves  the  same." 

Meanwhile  Abercorn  in  Ireland  caught  Bannatyne,  the  witness 
in  the  Dalrymple  case,  but,  on  a  point  of  honour,  let  him  go.  But 
Bannatyne  knew  that  old  Auchendrane  had  been  trying  to  get  him 
murdered  in  Ireland,  so  he  came  in  and  confessed.  Both  Auchen- 
dranes,  confronted  with  Bannatyne,  maintained  their  innocence.  A 
trial  was  now  resolved  on,  and  the  general  public  maintained  that 
Bannatyne  ought  first  to  be  tried  alone.  If  convicted,  and  if  he 
confessed  and  clave  to  his  confession  on  the  scaffold,  "  that  might  put 
them  in  some  opinion  of  Auchendrane's  guiltiness."  For  similar 
exquisite  reasons  Mr  Bruce,  the  famous  preacher,  wished  James  to 
hang  Henderson,  the  witness  in  the  Gowrie  case.  But  this  logic 
was  faulty ;  on  the  scaffold  George  Sprot  maintained  his  confession 
as  to  the  Gowrie  conspiracy,  without  converting  a  single  sceptic. 
On  July  17,  161 1,  the  three  "panels"  were  tried,  convicted,  and 
executed.  They  were  undeniably  guilty,  but,  setting  Bannatyne 
aside,  the  evidence  (the  depositions  are  lost)  was  circumstantial,  and 
the  long  detention  and  torture  of  young  Auchendrane,  with  some 
informalities  in  the  trial,  increased  public  sympathy  for  these  typical 
old  Scottish  malefactors. 

It  is  never  easy  to  be  certain  as  to  the  rights  and  wrongs  in  family 
bickerings,  like  these  discords  among  the  Mures  and  Kennedys.  No 
doubt  there  was  something  to  be  said  on  both  sides  in  a  quarrel 
which  goes  as  far  back  as  the  roasting  alive  of  the  Commendator  of 
Crossraguel  by  an  Earl  of  Cassilis,  soon  after  the  Reformation.* 
The  Earl  had,  before  Colzean's  murder,  been  on  bad  terms  with  his 
brother,  who  was  a  friend  of  the  murderer  Auchendrane.  In 
September  1602,  however,  the  noble  brothers  were  reconciled  on 
the  following  basis  : — The  Earl  was  to  give  his  kinsman  and  his 
accomplices  a  yearly  pension  of  1200  marks,  "good  and  thankful 
payment,"  as  soon  as  he  takes  Auchendrane's  life,  "  beginning  the 
first  payment  immediately  after  their  committing  of  the  said  deed. 
.  .  .  And  hereto  we  oblige  us,  upon  our  honour."  ^ 

These  things  were  done  in  a  region  which,  from  the  dawn  of  the 
Reformation,  had  been  peculiarly  enlightened,  having  profited  by 

*  See  Appendix,  "  Gowrie  and  Restalrig." 
VOL    "  2  M 


54^  A   LOGAN    MALEFACTOR. 

the  ministrations  of  the  martyr,  George  Wishart.  The  clergy,  how- 
ever, appear  to  have  been  on  the  side  of  Auchendrane.  In  February 
1604  Lady  Colzean,  widow  of  Auchendrane's  victim,  "pursued 
the  Presbytery  of  Ayr  for  not  observing  the  order  kept  by  them- 
selves and  all  other  Presbyteries  against  notorious  malefactors." 
The  Presbytery  made  an  exception  in  favour  of  her  husband's  mur- 
derers, "  against  whom  they  have  neither  used  censures  nor  admoni- 
tions, but  refuses  to  do  the  same."  The  Council  ordered  the 
Presbytery  to  excommunicate  the  murderers,  a  sensible  outrage  on 
the  freedom  of  the  Kirk.^  This  Lady  Colzean  had  been  the 
divorced  wife  of  Logan  of  Restalrig,  the  laird  connected  with  the 
Gowrie  conspiracy  :  she  did  not  find  the  west  of  Scotland  a  more 
peaceful  and  friendly  place  than  the  east. 

Among  the  most  usual  causes  and  consequences  of  feuds  was  the 
destruction  of  the  crops  and  the  houghing  of  the  cattle  of  persons 
occupying  lands  to  which  other  persons  had,  or  pretended,  a  claim. 
A  laird  or  yeoman  would  collect  his  friends  in  arms,  make  a  raid 
on  a  neighbouring  estate,  injure  the  cattle,  thrash  out  the  corn,  or 
trample  down  the  growing  crops,  and  drag  the  women  about  by  the 
hair  of  the  head,  pistolling  or  stabbing  all  who  made  resistance. 
Cases  of  this  kind  occur  in  scores.  Home  of  Rentoun  was  mixed 
up  in  the  affairs  of  Logan  of  Restalrig,  and  appears  to  have  been 
one  of  those  who  acquired  forged  documents  from  Sprot,  the  Eye- 
mouth notary,  implicating  Logan  in  the  Gowrie  affair.  These  were 
to  be  used  to  terrorise  Logan's  executors  after  the  laird's  death  in 
1606.  The  children  of  Logan,  though  his  heirs  were  forfeited  in 
1609,  seem  to  have  pretended  some  rights  over  "the  tithe  sheaves 
and  other  tithes  of  Horndene,"  which,  after  the  forfeiture  of  Logan's 
heirs  (1609),  had  been  granted  by  the  Crown  to  Alexander  Home 
of  Rentoun,  a  cousin  of  the  Earl  of  Dunbar.^  Consequently,  in 
August  and  September  1616,  Alexander  Logan,  son  of  the  late 
Restalrig,  "  armed  with  sword  and  dagger,  and  two  pistols  on  his 
person,  and  a  hagbut "  (musket)  "  in  his  hand,  went  to  the  barnyard  of 
Horndene,  violently  caused  a  large  quantity  of  corn  to  be  threshed 
which  had  been  lawfully  arrested  by  the  plaintiff,  and  placed  there 
till  the  sums  due  to  the  plaintiff  had  been  paid,  and  caused  the  said 
corn  to  be  carried  by  night  to  Norham,  and  other  places  in  England, 
to  be  disposed  of  there  at  his  pleasure."  Moreover,  Alexander 
Logan  was  backed  by  one  of  the  Chirnsides,  old  allies  of  the  wicked 
laird,  by  a  retainer  of  the  Earl  of  Home  (his  uncle),  and  others,  to 


A   MINISTER'S   FEUD.  547 

the  number  of  forty.  "  All  armed  with  swords,  gauntlets,  forks, 
lances,  etc.,  and  carrying  pistols  and  hagbuts,  they  went  to  the  lands 
of  Horndene,  and  violently  collected  the  teind  sheaves  thereof." 
The  plaintiff,  Rentoun,  sent  William  Lindsay  (an  official  messenger), 
and  his  own  retainer,  William  Home,  to  execute  a  legal  summons 
against  Alexander  Logan,  but  he  crossed  the  Tweed  into  England, 
and  sent  back  Chirnside  and  another  to  search  for  and  slay  William 
Home.  The  defenders  did  not  appear,  and  were  ordered  to  enter 
themselves  at  the  prison  of  the  Tolbooth.  Probably  they  did  not 
accept  this  invitation,  and  the  tradition  of  the  Logan  family  is  that 
their  ancestor  settled  in  England  till  these  affairs  were  forgotten.* 

This  typical  instance  of  what  was  always  going  on  may  be  interest- 
ing as  an  example  of  hereditary  lawlessness.  Alexander  Logan 
chassa  de  race.  But  even  preachers  were  not  exempt  from  human 
frailties.  On  the  page  of  the  "  Register  of  the  Privy  Council,"  which 
tells  of  the  feats  of  Alexander  Logan,  we  read  that  the  Reverend 
Mr  Thomas  Moir,  minister  of  Morebattle,  invaded  the  lands  of  Toft, 
armed  with  a  pitchfork,  and  attacked  Andrew  Ker  and  George  Pott. 
He  wounded  Pott  in  the  face,  and  cast  a  cartload  of  corn  into  the 
river.  Ker  was  the  son  of  Sir  John  Ker,  and  Mr  Moir  challenged 
him  to  single  combat,  which  Ker  refused,  "  not  through  fear,  but 
through  reverence  of  the  law,"  and  no  doubt  of  the  cloth.  Mr  Moir 
then  took  to  him  other  devils,  worse  than  himself,  including  a 
William  Logan,  to  the  number  of  twenty,  all  armed ;  they  went  to 
the  barn  of  Cowbog,  stole  corn,  and  nearly  killed  Wattie  Pott,  who 
attempted  to  resist  them.  This  was  the  plaintiff's  version,  but  Mr 
Moir  said  that  the  case  was  the  reverse,  several  persons,  under 
Andrew  Ker,  invaded  hijn,  threw  him  down,  and  jumped  on  him. 
This  was  on  September  3,  16 16,  the  day  before  Mr  Moir's  alleged 
raid  of  Cowbog.  The  lords  appear  to  have  let  both  parties  off,  and 
one  gathers  that  there  were  faults  on  both  sides.  On  the  whole, 
neither  the  preaching  of  the  word  nor  the  king's  forty  mounted 
police  had  made  Scotland  a  peaceable,  orderly  country.  Violence 
was  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception,  to  judge  by  the  number  of 
cases  recorded  even  in  counties  like  Ayrshire,  Berwick,  and  Rox- 
burgh. 

The  craftsmen,  in  towns,  occasionally  mutinied  against  the  magis- 
trates. In  Stirling  (16 16)  the  bailies  described  the  craftsmen  as 
"seditious,  restless  busybodies,  bound  in  a  factious  and  mutinous 
society."     They  usually  held  "  indignation  meetings  "  every  Monday, 


548  THE   KIRK  AND   MORALITY. 

and  set  down  acts  and  statutes  of  their  own,  tampering  with  the 
lawful  weight  of  bread,  and  banding  together  to  refuse  to  pay  the 
stipends  of  the  minister  and  the  schoolmaster.  Education  and 
religion  they  regarded  as  luxuries  for  which  they  declined  to  be 
taxed.  No  decision  of  the  Town  Council  was  accepted  by  the 
Monday  meetings  upon  the  hills ;  a  man  was  a  man  for  a'  that,  and 
why  should  he  obey  the  bailies  ?  They  actually  proposed  to  carry 
the  king's  standard  at  the  wapinschaw  instead  of  their  own  ;  they 
rioted  in  arms,  opened  the  gaol  and  let  loose  the  prisoners,  and 
generally  proved  that  the  democratic  doctrines  of  the  Scots  are  not 
(as  has  been  vainly  alleged)  an  invention  of  Robert  Burns.=^ 

In  the  matter  of  private  morals  the  Kirk,  where  she  was  strong, 
as  in  Fife,  did  her  best.  The  Kirk-Session  of  St  Andrews  has 
bequeathed  to  the  ages  a  Register,  edited  by  Dr  Hay  Fleming. 
Hence  we  gather  that  some  stubborn  souls  would  persistently  make 
merry  at  Christmas,  "  keeping  great  Yules,"  as  was  the  habit  of  the 
truly  unregenerate  Laird  of  Restalrig.  On  Trinity  Sunday,  too,  the 
populace  danced  and  piped,  at  least  at  Raderny.  They  were  cut 
off  from  baptism,  and  holy  communion,  and  marriage  till  they 
made  satisfaction  ;  but  marriage  was  a  "  benefit  of  the  Kirk,"  which 
too  many  parishioners  were  more  than  content  to  do  without.  They 
were  more  easily  tamed  by  being  shut  up  in  the  kirk  steeple,  where 
witches  were  often  incarcerated.  "  Sins  of  uncleanness,"  says  Dr 
Hay  Fleming,  "  were  still  fearfully  prevalent."  The  unclean  used  to 
be  let  off  with  a  40s.  fine,  but  Mr  Black  (famous  as  the  occasion 
of  the  Edinburgh  riot  of  1596)  was  much  more  severe.  The  swain, 
for  his  first  offence,  had  to  pay  ;^4o  (Scots)  to  the  poor,  "  or  eight 
days."  For  the  second,  his  fine  was  much  increased,  and  his  head 
was  shaved,  rendering  him  "not  one  to  be  desired"  by  the  sex. 
For  the  third  he  was  still  more  heavily  fined,  ducked  thrice  (the  sea 
being  convenient),  and  banished.  An  offender  against  the  seventh 
commandment  was  pilloried,  the  students  and  populace,  stern 
moralists,  pelted  him  with  rotten  eggs,  and  he  was  well  ducked. 
He  had  also  to  do  penance  at  the  kirk  door,  barefooted  and  in 
sackcloth,  and  go  to  catechism,  "till  the  Kirk  be  satisfied."  During 
the  next  three  years  only  five  adulterers  offended,  or  were  caught, 
at  all  events.  During  Mr  Black's  last  year  there  was  not  a  single 
case  of  lawless  love  "before  the  Session."  But,  by  1599,  the 
brethren  found  that  "the  syn  of  fornicatioun  and  huredom  did 
grytlie  incres."     Indeed,  the  staple  of  the  Register  is  lawless  affection 


WITCHCRAFT.  549 

and  Sabbath -breaking.  Nobody  was  allowed  to  be  seen  out  of 
kirk  "  in  tyme  of  sermone,"  and  the  thirsty  had  to  walk  to  Leuchars 
(three  or  four  miles)  and  tipple  there.  The  popular  idea  of  a 
holiday  is  to  go  and  get  drunk  somewhere  else.  Mr  Black,  be  it 
observed,  was  rather  an  extreme  disciplinarian,  and  publicly  re- 
marked that  "  a  great  part "  of  the  ministers  "  was  worthie  to  be 
hangit."  After  his  removal  Calderwood  said  (about  1613)  that  he 
himself  saw  more  people  skating,  curling,  and  sliding,  at  all  events 
"  amusing  themselves  on  the  ice,"  than  in  church  on  a  Sunday.  Dr 
Hay  Fleming  shows  that  Calderwood  must  have  been  unfortunate. 

In  1746  the  Chevalier  Johnstone  found  that  the  seed  sown  by 
the  exemplary  Mr  Black  had  borne  fruits  of  righteousness.  The 
chevalier  was  escaping  from  Culloden,  but  could  not  induce  any  one 
to  let  him  hire  a  horse  on  Sunday.  They  say  grace  before  they  take 
a  pinch  of  snuff,  he  says,  and  he  regards  St  Andrews  as  a  great  deal 
worse  than  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  being  a  nest  of  sanctimonious 
hypocrites.  The  chevalier  was  a  Jacobite,  and  much  depends  upon 
the  point  of  view.  According  to  Dr  Hay  Fleming,  and  we  cannot 
have  a  better  guide,  the  Kirk- Sessions  did  not  wait,  in  cases  of 
ungodly  speaking,  kissing  and  wrestling  in  the  streets,  cards  and 
dice,  manslaughter,  witchcraft,  and  so  on,  till  a  public  slander  arose. 
Literally  "from  pitch  and  toss  to  manslaughter"  the  Sessions  dealt 
with  all  enormities.  "  Not  only  was  it  the  duty  of  the  elders  and 
deacons  to  report  transgressions,  but  special  steps  were  taken  to 
ferret  out  gross  sins  that  they  might  be  repressed."  The  elders 
would  seem  to  have  been  Peeping  Toms. 

Of  witchcraft  we  have  elsewhere  spoken.  The  fear  of  witches 
seems  to  have  been  a  curious  epidemic,  raging  now  here,  now  there 
for  a  time,  and  then  abating.  Geneva  exceeded  in  witch-burning 
before  the  Reformation,  but  the  sixteenth  and  early  seventeenth 
centuries  were  the  most  furious  in  this  absurdity.  In  Scotland  we 
hear  very  little  of  witch-burning  before  the  Reformation,  indeed, 
before  the  time  of  Regent  Murray.  In  England  the  Puritans 
encouraged  and  Bancroft  mocked  at  these  practices,  which  were 
much  stimulated  by  the  precept  and  example  of  James  VI.  As  a 
rule,  charges  of  witchcraft  rested  on  the  belief  in  the  evil  eye,  and 
on  the  assertions  of  young  people  suffering  from  hysterical  disorders. 
But  the  witches  probably  believed  in  their  own  powers,  and 
practised  folk-medicine  aided  by  popular  charms  in  rhyme,  derived 
from  the  old  faith.     They   also   worked   by   "sympathetic  magic," 


550  LENT. 

they  told  fortunes,  dealt  in  curses,  and,  under  torture,  repeated,  in 
Germany  as  in  Scotland,  folk-tales  about  fairy-land  and  the  Fairy 
Queen,  or  about  the  devil.  Hysterical  diseases  are  still  inexplicable 
enough,  the  belief  in  the  evil  eye  still  flourishes,  folk-medicine  and 
charms  are  still  in  use,  isolated  cases  of  second  sight  occur,  and  all 
the  elements  of  witchcraft  live  on  in  Scotland  as  in  England.  Only 
the  law,  fortunately,  has  been  altered,  much  to  the  regret  of  John 
Wesley  at  the  time.  The  old  law  applied  to  Bothwell  (Francis 
Stewart)  was  the  occasion  of  his  extraordinary  career  of  rebellion  ; 
and  it  lent  colour,  or  was  intended  to  lend  colour,  to  the  charges 
against  the  young  Earl  of  Gowrie.  He  carried  a  written  talisman 
which  came  into  the  hands  of  that  Lord  Cromarty  who  was  still  alive 
in  1 7 13.  Similar  talismans,  found  in  an  old  house,  have  lately 
been  exhibited  to  the  author.  Belief  in  the  efficacy  of  such  things 
was  very  common  on  the  Continent  as  well  as  in  Scotland,  as 
common  as  among  the  Greeks  settled  in  Egypt,  with  their  magical 
papyri. 

While  everj'thing  joyous  that  could  be  called  a  rag  of  Popery  was 
put  down,  it  is  curious  to  find  that  the  observance  of  Lent,  as  far  as 
abstinence  from  flesh  is  concerned,  was  enforced.  This  was  not  for 
religious,  but  for  supposed  sanitary  reasons.  "  Seeing  that,  in  the 
spring,  all  kinds  of  flesh  decays  and  grows  out  of  season,  and  that  it 
is  convenient  for  the  commonwealth  that  they  be  spared  during  that 
time,  to  the  end  that  they  be  more  plenteous  and  cheaper  during 
the  rest  of  the  year,"  butchers  and  others  were  forbidden  to  slaughter 
in  Lent.  This  was  a  standing  Order  of  Council,  and  was  intended 
not  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  "  bestial,"  but  to  encourage  the  fishing 
trade.  Perhaps  Lent  originally  arose  before  Christianity,  in  the 
opinion  that  meat  is  out  of  season  in  spring,  and  was  merely  adopted 
and  sanctified  by  the  early  Church,  like  many  of  her  other  feasts 
and  fasts.  We  have  not  observed  that  the  preachers  raised  their 
voices  against  Lent  as  a  survival  of  Popery.  That  sanitary  con- 
ditions were  not  good  may  be  inferred  from  the  edicts  against 
keeping  swine  in  the  basements  of  houses  in  Edinburgh,  and  against 
piling  up  dunghills  and  heaps  of  refuse  in  the  streets.  Dunbar,  long 
before,  and  Smollett  long  afterwards,  satirised  the  abundant  filthiness 
of  Edinburgh.  When  plague  appeared,  as  it  often  did,  infected 
families  in  the  capital  were  obliged  to  go  and  camp  on  the  Burgh 
Moor.  "  Every  one,"  says  a  contemporary,  "  is  become  so  detestable 
to  every  other,  and  specially  the  poor  in  the  sight  of  the  rich,  as  if 


PLAGUE.  551 

they  were  not  equal  with  them,  touching  their  creation."  In  1584 
the  plague  appeared  in  Perth ;  in  May  it  reached  Edinburgh  ;  the 
king  flying  from  it  to  what  had  been  Cowrie's  Castle  of  Dirleton, 
near  North  Berwick,  then  possessed  by  that  Arran  (Captain  James 
Stewart)  who  was  the  instrument  of  the  death  and  forfeiture  of 
Cowrie.  All  fled  who  could;  some  1400  died,  says  the  diarist, 
Birrel.  There  is  a  blank  in  the  St  Andrews  Register  for  nearly  a 
year,  "all  gude  ordour  ceasit  in  this  citee."  The  evil  was  attributed 
to  the  banishment  of  the  Presbyterian  leaders,  with  the  Lords  of  the 
Raid  of  Ruthven,  and  it  ceased  as  soon  as  they  returned,  in 
November  1585,  at  the  raid  of  Stirling,  Winter  weather  perhaps 
depressed  the  plague  germs,  and  Presbyterianism  triumphant  may 
not  have  been  the  cause  of  the  improvement.  The  returned  nobles 
rode  through  a  town  almost  untenanted ;  then  Border  ruffians 
robbed  the  very  pest  houses,  but  were  no  whit  the  worse.  Return- 
ing from  banishment  with  the  Ruthven  Lords,  James  Melville  break- 
fasted at  Restalrig  (Logan  being  a  Cowrie  man,  and  hospitable), 
and  entered  Edinburgh.  Riding  in  at  the  Water  Cate,  through  the 
High  Street,  and  out  at  the  West  Port,  "  in  all  that  way  we  saw  not 
three  persons,  so  that  I  jniskenned  Edinburgh,  and  almost  forgot  that 
I  had  ever  seen  such  a  town."  The  survivors  had  fled  to  lonely 
country  places ;  like  Bessy  Bell  and  Marion  Cray  in  the  ballad — 

They  biggit  a  bower  on  yon  burjj-side, 
And  theikit  it  ower  wi'  rashes. 

The  absence  of  statistics  makes  it  impossible  to  conjecture  the 
extent  of  the  injury  done  by  the  plague  or  pest,  by  other  epidemic 
diseases,  and  by  the  perpetual  murders  and  manslaughters,  to  the 
population  of  the  country.  It  was  an  age  of  large  families  ;  the 
losses  of  pest  and  war  were  soon  recovered.  Scotland  had  more 
population  than  means  of  employing  her  children.  They  bore  arms 
for  most  of  the  European  powers,  the  Continent  was  crowded  with 
our  Dalgettys.     Not  content 

"To  fecht  the  foreign  loons  in  their  ain  countrie," 

they  also  fought  each  other  on  alien  shores.  In  the  Cowrie 
tragedy  we  find  mention  of  a  Captain  Ruthven,  who  carried  to 
Lady  Cowrie,  from  the  Earl's  hunting  quarters  in  Atholl,  the  news 
that  he  "was  to  come."  Captain  Ruthven  is  mentioned  only  on 
this  one  occasion  in  the  proceedings,  but,  on  June  20,  1600,  seven 
weeks  before  the  slaughter  of  the  Ruthvens,   we  find  that  he  had 


552  SCOTS   ABROAD. 

been  brawling  abroad  with  his  own  countrymen.  One  William 
Little  described  to  the  Privy  Council  a  skirmish  which  he  had  viewed 
at  Dantzic,  "the  sun  shining  on  a  fair  day."  Two  Scots,  Greir  and 
Bain,  were  "  playing  at  the  cables "  near  the  harbour,  when  Bain 
gave  the  lie  to  Greir,  and  Greir  "gave  Bain  a  cuff."  Captain 
Ruthven  took  the  side  of  Bain,  and  Captain  Maxwell  avowed  him- 
self the  partisan  of  Greir,  whom  Bain  stabbed  from  behind.  Ruthven 
declared  that  the  stroke  was  fair  (though  that  was  not  the  opinion 
of  William  Little),  and  he  would  "  defend  his  opinion  as  a  soldier." 
Captain  Maxwell  thereon  borrowed  a  sword  from  one  Cunningham, 
and  approached  Ruthven,  saying  "  thou  shalt  have  one."  Ruthven 
lunged  thrice  at  Maxwell,  and  said,  "  Thou  hast  enough."  Maxwell 
answered,  "  Not  so  much  as  you  think " ;  the  point,  perhaps,  had 
merely  grazed  his  ribs.  Ruthven  struck  again,  Maxwell  riposted, 
and  Ruthven,  who  was  wearing  "  mules,"  or  thin  shoes,  fell.  Max- 
well made  as  if  to  strike  him  where  he  lay,  when  "a  little  Highland- 
man,"  Duff,  smote  Maxwell  from  behind,  crying  to  Ruthven,  "  Rise 
up,  master,  for  he  has  enough."  This  combat  was  at  "the  Douglas 
Port,"  which  seems  to  imply  that  there  was  a  Scottish  quarter  in 
Dantzic.  The  end  was  that  a  corporal,  Wallace,  came  with  a  halbert 
and  protected  Maxwell.  The  other  witnesses  were  all  burgesses  of 
Edinburgh,  except  Crawford,  servant  to  a  famous  rich  burgess  named 
Macmorran.  Except  Greir,  nobody  is  said  to  have  been  killed,  nor 
do  we  find  that  any  measures  were  taken  against  Ruthven,  who 
seems  to  have  returned  to  Scotland,  and  appears,  for  a  moment,  in 
connection  with  the  Gowrie  tragedy.^ 

The  religious  persecutions  drove  a  Puritan,  like  Andrew  Melville, 
to  Sedan,  and  many  Catholics  to  the  foreign  universities.  The 
trading  Scots  formed  communities  of  their  own  as  far  off  as  Poland, 
keeping  up  their  religion,  and  organising  themselves  under  their 
own  bye-laws.  They  were  not  more  popular  in  Poland  than  the 
Jews.  We  hear  little  of  wider  range  of  adventure  to  "  the  Indies  " 
or  America.  Logan  of  Restalrig,  after  the  Gowrie  collapse,  took  a 
share,  with  Lord  Willoughby,  in  a  ship  that  was  to  sail  to  "  the 
Indies,"  with  the  laird  as  skipper,  but  he  never  set  out,  and  we  do 
not  know  how  the  venture  fared :  the  death  of  Lord  Willoughby 
(1601)  may  have  put  an  end  to  the  project.'^  At  home  the  prices 
of  articles  of  utility  were  regulated  by  the  magistrates  or  the  Privy 
Council.  Boots  and  shoes  were  declared  to  be  far  too  dear,  and 
the  price  was  lowered.     The  Lothian  coal-owners  held  a  meeting 


f 


MINES   AND   MINT.  553 

and  raised  the  price  of  coal ;  the  Council  put  it  down  again.  The 
exportation  of  coal  was  usually  prohibited,  but  the  king  would  grant 
a  privilege  of  exportation  to  a  favourite.  The  bonnet-makers  of 
Edinburgh  and  the  Canongate  quarrelled  over  their  respective  rights, 
but  foreigners  who  could  teach  improvements  in  cloth-making  were 
entertained  at  the  expense  of  the  country.  Foreigners,  also,  took 
the  lead  in  silver-  and  lead -mining.  There  was  gold -mining  in 
Meggatdale,  in  the  Glengaber  Burn,  which  flows  into  Meggat  Water 
on  the  left  hand.  Gold  is  still  found  in  that  burn,  but  not  in 
remunerative  quantities.  The  author  has  reason  to  believe  that 
gold  is  not  the  only  mineral  treasure  of  Glengaber.  Hilderston, 
in  Linlithgowshire,  was  a  centre  of  silver-mining,  and  Thomas 
Foulis  was  busy  with  processes  for  converting  lead  ore  into  litharge, 
white  and  red  lead,  and  ceruse.  He  was  a  goldsmith,  which 
usually  involved  being  a  banker,  in  Edinburgh.  The  export  of 
eggs  was  denounced  as  "most  unlawful  and  pernicious,"  and  the 
invention  of  curing  red  herring  led  to  a  good  deal  of  litigation. 
The  sale  of  tobacco  was  prohibited,  "a  weed  so  infective  as  all 
young  and  idle  persons  are  in  a  manner  bewitched  therewith,  the 
taking  whereof  being  a  special  motive  to  their  often  meetings  in 
taverns  and  alehouses"  (May  22,  1616).  But  this  prohibition 
merely  led  to  a  monopoly  granted  to  a  Captain  Murray. 

As  to  coinage,  fraudulent  "  hard  heads  "  were  a  standing  grievance. 
Huntly  offered  James  ^40,000  for  the  privilege  of  coining  10,000 
stone  of  copper,  but  this  kind  of  and  amount  of  "  Wood's  half- 
pence "  was  judged  to  be  too  colossal  an  experiment.  Foreign  gold 
coin  was  decried  and  ordered  to  be  brought  into  the  mint  (161 3). 
Among  foreign  coins  in  circulation  were  "  the  auld  Rose  noble,  the 
Harry  noble,  the  Portugal  ducat,  and  the  French  Harry  ducat " ;  of 
native  coin  we  hear  about  "  the  queen's  portrait  with  the  naked 
craig  "  (Mary  Stuart  in  a  low  dress),  and  "  his  majestie's  ducat  with 
the  bair  heade."  The  relative  value  of  the  money  of  the  age  to  the 
money  of  to-day  is  a  topic  too  minute  and  difficult.  Dr  Masson 
concludes  that  a  sum  of  Scots  money  can  be  brought  to  the 
contemporary  English  level  if  divided  by  twelve.  The  Earl  of 
Orkney,  in  prison,  had  an  allowance  of  ;^4  Scots  per  diem ;  in 
England  this  would  have  been  six  shillings  and  eightpence.  Logan 
of  Restalrig  gave  Sprot  ;^i2  as  an  instalment  of  hush  money. 
That  was  ;£^\  English,  and  Logan  said  that  it  would  buy  two 
"bolls"   of  corn.^     Dr  Masson  thinks   that   any  sum   then   could 


554  THE   LEATHER   TRADE. 

purchase  at  least  four  times  as  much  in  commodities  as  at  present. 
Huntly's  rental,  in  money,  was  ;^3ooo  Scots,  equivalent,  in  purchas- 
ing power,  to  ;!^iooo  sterling  at  present  on  this  calculation.^  His 
"ferm  victual"  was  about  4000  bolls,  two  bolls  being,  on  Restalrig's 
theory,  worth  £,\  English,  and  if  the  pound  had  four  times  the 
present  purchasing  value,  Huntly's  rents  in  kind  greatly  exceeded 
his  rental  in  specie,  while  he  got  3231  "  kane  hens,"  and  vast 
quantities  of  other  produce.  In  1602  he  was  able  to  build  a 
magnificent  new  house  at  Strathbogie.^*^ 

With  all  their  comparative  wealth  in  produce  the  nobles  were 
very  poor  in  money,  hence  the  facility  with  which  they  were  bought 
and  bribed  on  every  hand,  and  hence  their  greed  for  monopolies 
and  English  places.  Hence,  too,  from  the  lack  of  bullion,  arose 
the  system  of  commercial  taboos  intended  "to  keep  money  in  the 
country."  "To  import  a  commodity,  unless  by  exchange  for  some 
native  commodity  "  (such  as  red  herrings),  "  meant  to  export  gold  and 
silver  for  purchase  of  the  import,  and,  as  wealth  consisted  in  the 
possession  of  gold  and  silver,  this  was  always  a  damage  to  the 
commonwealth."  On  the  other  hand,  the  exportation  of  native 
commodities — coal,  corn,  pig-iron,  and  so  forth — was  often  under 
taboo,  and  an  economic  authority  informs  the  world  that  "  pig-iron 
is  the  test  of  a  nation's  progress."  If  you  may  not  export  your 
staple  commodities  (for  that  raises  their  price  at  home),  nor  pur- 
chase imports  with  bullion  (for  that  sends  money  out  of  the 
country),  it  seems  as  if  you  could  scarcely  have  any  commerce  at 
all,  and  as  if  trade  must  have  been  pure  smuggling.  The  preachers 
added  a  taboo  of  their  own  against  dealing  with  idolaters,  like 
the  Spaniards,  but  the  trading  classes  disregarded  the  pious 
restriction. 

The  leather  trade  (which  Mr  Robert  Louis  Stevenson  describes 
as  peculiarly  precarious)  passed  through  a  crisis  in  161 7-1622. 
The  shoemakers  complained  of  the  execrable  quality  of  Scottish 
leather,  and  the  tanners  admitted  that  their  leather,  in  truth,  was 
very  bad.  A  committee  decided  that  "the  country  was  very  far 
abused  in  the  barking  of  their  hides,"  but  the  Town  Council  of 
Edinburgh  urged  that  the  Privy  Council  had  no  right  to  bring  in 
alien  tanners  to  teach  Scotland  how  to  tan.  That  was  matter  for 
the  king  and  Parliament.  However,  eight  tanners  were  fetched, 
and  Lord  Erskine,  son  of  the  Earl  of  }vLir,  obtained  a  patent  in 
the  leather  trade,  and  furnished  the  capital.     Naturally  the  English 


IMPORTS  AND  EXPORTS.  555 

tutors  in  tanning  (seventeen  in  number)  did  not  lead  happy  lives, 
and  now  the  boot  and  shoemakers  resisted  the  very  reform  for 
which  they  had  clamoured.  They  raised  the  prices  of  boots  and 
shoes  inordinately,  which  is  perhaps  the  reason  why  the  less  opulent 
classes  only  wore  shoes  on  Sundays.  Such  was  the  crisis  in  the 
leather  trade. '■^ 

It  will  surprise  no  one  to  hear  that  what  soap  was  used  in  Scot- 
land was  foreign  soap,  and  that  bad,  probably  adulterated,  so  that 
foreigners  "  cannot  abide  the  smell  of  the  napery  and  linen  clothes 
washed  with  this  filthy  soap."  A  Mr  Udward  obtained  a  patent 
for  soap-making,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Flemish  article.  The 
king  is  also  said  to  have  put  a  prohibitive  tariff  on  Dutch  golf-balls, 
greatly  to  the  benefit  of  the  native  manufacturer.  If  the  author 
may  hazard  a  conjecture,  it  is  that  the  golf-balls  of  the  period  (like 
those  used  at  the  jeu  de  mail)  were  made  of  wood.  Lord  Caithness 
describes  the  cannon-balls  at  the  siege  of  Kirkwall  as  breaking 
in  two,  "  like  golf-balls."  Now  a  feather  golf-ball,  such  as  was  used 
in  the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  centuries,  cannot  break  into 
two  fragments,  as  a  gutta-percha  or  a  wooden  golf-ball  does.  Hence 
we  may  infer  that  the  golf-balls  of  King  James's  reign  were  wooden. 
Glass-making  and  sugar-refining,  as  well  as  cloth-making,  tanning, 
and  soap-boiling,  were  all  improved,  and  were  subjects  of  careful 
attention  to  the  king  and  Council.  A  machine  for  transporting  coal 
from  the  pit-mouth  was  invented,  a  kind  of  tram  perhaps.  English 
beer  was  introduced  (and  adulterated),  and  native  beer  improved,  to 
lessen  the  demand  for  foreign  wines.  The  local  single  ale  cost  a 
penny  (English)  the  pint  (the  Scots  pint),  containing  about  three 
English  pints  or  more.  The  best  native  double  ale  was  the 
"  tippenny,"  or  two  shillings  Scots,  and  one  of  the  grievances  of  the 
saints  in  the  Bass,  under  Charles  II.,  was  that  they  had  "to  pay 
at  a  sixpenny  rate  for  a  pint  o'  the  tippenny  yill,"  The  Celts,  of 
course,  already  got  drunk  on  whisky  and  eau  de  vie. 

Imports,  naturally,  were  "  nearly  ten  times  as  numerous  as 
exports."  Arrows,  baskets,  beads,  beer,  bows,  bricks,  brushes, 
carpets,  caviare,  chairs,  chessmen,  chests,  cloth,  combs,  dolls, 
drugs,  ivory,  furs,  garters,  gloves,  glue,  groceries,  Jew's -harps, 
muskets,  pistols,  silk,  spectacles,  surgical  instruments,  swords,  tin, 
tobacco,  thimbles,  vinegar,  viols,  virginals,  and  wines  (French, 
Rhenish,  Levantine,  and  Spanish),  were  among  the  imports.  How 
they  were  paid  for  is  a  mystery  of  political  economy ;  for  the  most 


556  KINDLY   TENANTS. 

part,  perhaps,  in  red  herrings.  There  was  not  always  and  univer- 
sally a  taboo  on  exporting  coal,  corn,  and  other  commodities. 
Salmon  was  a  staple  ;  and,  in  short,  though  we  can  scarcely  tell  how, 
Scotland  obtained  her  imports.  Probably  the  laws  were  defied  or 
evaded.  At  this  period,  judging  by  the  case  of  Stirling  and  of 
Perth,  where  the  town  sent  out  800  men  to  resist  depredations  by 
Lord  Scone,  and  by  various  accounts  of  the  troubles  in  Edinburgh, 
the  craftsmen  were  numerous,  well-to-do,  and  turbulent  on  occasion. 
The  tillers  of  the  ground  not  only  suffered  from  the  raids  and  feuds, 
but,  as  a  rule,  were  subject  to  summary  eviction,  and  held  their 
crofts  for  brief  periods  on  precarious  tenure.  We  have  elsewhere 
given  examples  to  prove  this,  and  the  preachers  constantly  insisted 
on  the  merciless  oppressions  of  the  lairds. 

The  class  of  farmers  called  "  kindly  "  or  "  native "  tenants  had 
tenures  less  uncertain,  and  enjoyed  recognised  rights  which  they  could 
sometimes  be  persuaded  to  part  with  for  various  considerations.  After 
the  Gowrie  affair,  when  Logan  of  Restalrig  took  to  selling  his  lands  (to 
avoid  forfeiture,  as  was  believed),  he  "came  to  Edinburgh  for  re- 
demption of  the  lands  of  Flemington  from  the  goodwife  of  Peilwalls." 
Lady  Restalrig  (Logan's  wife)  said,  "  This  is  but  vain  labour,  for  I  am 
sure  if  it  were  in  the  laird's  hands  it  would  not  bide  long  unsold." 
"And  Bower  "  (alleged  to  have  been  Logan's  go-between  with  Gowrie) 
"  said  to  the  laird,  as  we  thought  by  way  of  pretence,  '  It  were  better, 
sir,  that  you  should  let  the  honest  folk  brook  their  land,  and  take  the 
old  offer  that  they  offered  you  long  ago,  than  to  wreck  them  and 
remove  them,  for  they  are  native  tenants.^ "  This  is  a  statement  of 
Sprot,  the  fraudulent  notary,  who  forged  the  plot-letters  of  Logan  : 
the  passage  is  in  the  Haddington  MSB.  The  goodwife  of  Peilwalls, 
as  a  kindly  or  native  tenant,  had  a  tenant  right  over  part  of  the 
lands  of  Flemington,  which  Logan  wished  to  clear  off  before  selling 
the  estate.  According  to  Sprot,  he  made  that  ingenious  man  forge 
a  document  to  further  his  purpose.  The  facts  illustrate  the  relatively 
secure  position  of  tenants,  kindly  or  "  native,"  who,  of  course,  were 
no  longer  the  nativi,  or  serfs,  of  our  earlier  history. 

How  rich  ladies  lived  we  learn  from  a  curious  and  then  popular 
play,  "Philotus"  (1603).  One  publisher,  dying  at  about  this  time 
(1 600-1 6 10),  had  500  copies  of  "Philotus"  in  stock.  The  piece  turns 
on  the  desire  of  a  rich  old  man  to  wed  a  pretty  girl.  He  sends  a 
woman  to  point  out  the  advantages  of  the  match.  Every  day  shall 
be  comfortable. 


A   LADY'S   DAY.  557 

Your  fire  shall  first  be  burning  clear, 
Your  maidens  then  shall  have  your  gear 
Put  in  good  order  and  efieir, 
Each  morning  ere  you  rise. 

And  say,  lo,  Mistress,  here  your  mules, 
Put  on  your  petticoat  or  it  cools, 
Lo,  here  one  of  your  velvet  stools 
Whereon  you  shall  sit  down. 

Then  two  shall  come  to  comb  your  hair, 
Put  on  your  headgear  soft  and  fair, 
Take  there  your  glass,  see  all  be  clear, 
And  so  goes  on  your  gown. 

Then  take  to  staunch  the  morning  drouth, 
A  cup  of  JMalmsey  for  your  mouth. 
For  fume  cast  sugar  in  at  fouth. 
Together  with  a  toast. 

Three  garden  gulps  take  of  the  air, 
And  bid  your  page  in  haste  prepare 
For  your  disjune  some  dainty  fair, 
And  care  not  for  no  cost. 

A  pair  of  plovers  piping  het, 
A  partridge  and  a  quaily  get, 
A  cup  of  sack,  sweet  and  well  set. 
May  for  a  breakfast  gain. 

Your  cater  he  may  care  for  syne 
Some  delicate  against  ye  dine. 
Your  cook  to  season  all  so  fine. 
Then  does  employ  his  pain. 

So  the  day  goes  on,  with  eating,  drinking,  dressing,  music,  and  for 
exercise,  walking  up  and  down  a  green  alley  :  the  last  collation  is 
taken  with  Rhenish  wine, 

For  it  is  cold  and  clean. 

Velvet  hats,  gold  embroideries,  hoods  of  state,  are  dwelt  on,  and 

Your  mask  when  ye  shall  gang  to  gait 
From  sun  and  wind,  early  and  late. 
To  keep  that  face  so  fair, 

a  precaution  common  even  in  the  eighteenth  century.  Chains  of 
Paris  work,  carcanets,  velvet,  silk,  satin,  damascene,  are  all  offered, 
velvet  shoon,  silken  stockings,  "all  your  fingers  full  of  rings,  with 
pearls  and  precious  stones." 

Sweet  heart,  what  further  would  you  have  ? 


558  BOOKS   AND   BOOKSELLERS, 

The  lady  very  briefly  replies  in  the  spirit  of  the  song, 

What  should  a  young  lassie  do  wi'  an  auld  man  ? 

Beyond  this  point  her  remarks  are  too  candid  and  explicit  for  repro- 
duction by  a  writer  of  the  opposite  sex.^^  The  play  has  little  merit 
beyond  that  of  nimble  rhyme,  and  is  founded  on  a  novel  by  Barnaby 
Rich. 

What  did  people  read  in  these  days  ?  We  have  the  reply  to  this 
question  in  the  wills  of  several  Edinburgh  printers  and  publishers. 
These  documents  contain  lists  of  the  persons  who  were  in  debt  to 
their  booksellers.  They  are  chiefly  college  men  and  ministers. 
We  find  both  Andrew  and  James  Melville,  Mr  Peter  Hewat  and  Mr 
Charles  Lumsden  (who  heard  Sprot's  confessions  as  to  the  forged 
Logan  letters);  we  find  Lady  Cowrie,  who  owed  £,i6  :  4  :  8  to  Edward 
Cathkin,  in  1601;  and  we  find  her  future  son-in-law,  young  TuUibar- 
dine,  whom  she  detested  because  he  was  in  Perth  on  the  fatal  fifth  of 
August,  when  her  sons  were  slain.  Scarcely  any  lairds  appear  to 
have  been  book-buyers,  no  nobles  are  in  the  lists,  and,  except  Lady 
Cowrie,  only  one  lady,  Helen  Rutherford.  The  king,  however,  is  on 
the  lists,  and  perhaps  the  gentry  usually  paid  ready  money ;  if  not, 
they  were  not  book-buyers,  though  tradesmen  and  the  clergy  patron- 
ised literature.  Two  curious  facts  are  demonstrated,  '•  the  very  large 
impressions  of  books  then  printed,"  and  "  the  way  in  which  these 
copies  have  almost  wholly  disappeared."  Setting  aside  Bibles  and 
psalm  books  and  school  books,  we  find  that  Bassandyne  had  510 
copies  of  Sir  David  Lindsay's  poems,  while  the  romance  of  "  Crey 
Steil  "  existed  in  large  numbers.  Among  the  most  popular  books  were 
Sir  David  Lindsay's  Poems,  Blind  Harry's  "Wallace,"  Henryson's 
■"  Testament  of  Cressid,"  Rollock's  Sermons,  "Valentine  and  Orson," 
"  Guy  of  Warrick,"  "  The  Palace  of  Pleasure,"  Sir  Thomas  Elyot's 
"Governour,"  "Gargantua,"  Sir  John  Mandeville,  "Squire  Meldrum," 
"Bevis  of  Hampton,"  "Winter  Nights";  the  rest  are,  for  the  most 
part,  theological  books  and  editions  of  the  Latin  classics.  "  Philotus" 
appears  to  be  the  only  contemporary  work  in  verse  which  had 
a  considerable  sale.  One  does  not  observe  a  "  Faery  Queen,"  or 
any  of  the  books  of  the  great  Elizabethan  poets.  On  the  whole, 
though  considerable  numbers  of  books  were  bought,  Uterature  in 
Scotland  must  have  been  a  starveling  trade  early  in  the  seventeenth 
century.  The  Greek  classics,  too,  scarcely  appear  in  the  booksellers' 
lists. 


ST   ANDREWS   UNIVERSITY.  559 

To  give  a  complete  account  of  the  universities  is  not  possible 
in  this  place.  The  King's  College  of  Edinburgh  made  up  the 
number  to  four — St  Andrews,  Glasgow,  Aberdeen,  Edinburgh.  There 
were  frequent  visitations  of  St  Andrews  by  royal  commissions. 
The  place,  freely  robbed  at  the  Reformation,  and  unsettled  by  many 
years  of  turmoil,  could  not  be  in  a  satisfactory  condition.  The 
University  had  but  three  colleges,  St  Salvator's,  St  Leonard's,  and 
St  Mary's,  of  which  Andrew  Melville  was  Principal,  assisted  by  his 
nephew  James.  The  commissioners  of  April  1588  were  addressed 
in  this  colloquial  style  of  royal  impatience,  "  It  is  most  difficult  in 
this  confused  time,  when  all  folks  are  looking  to  the  weltering  of  the 
world,  to  effectuate  any  good  common  work  ,  .  .  and  specially 
where  ye  are  not  certainly  instructed,  and  has  no  great  hope  of 
thanks  for  your  travail ;  however,  seeing  things  are  so  far  proceeded, 
do  something,  for  God's  sake  !....!  have  mair  writing  concern- 
ing thir  materis  of  the  CoUegis  nor  I  wald  get  red  my  selff  this  XV 
dayes,  albeit  I  had  little  other  thing  ado,"  goes  on  King  James.  It 
is  not  the  authors  intention  to  inflict  on  himself  or  the  reader  the 
information  which  was  too  much  for  King  James.  Knowing  St 
Andrews  fairly  well,  the  king  says  to  his  commissioners,  "  Forbid 
thair  quarrelling  .  .  .  Albeit  it  is  not  forbid  that  they  flyte  (scold) 
yet  forbid  fechting,  or  bearing  of  daggis  (pistols)  or  swerdis,  sending 
of  cartels,  or  setting  up  of  pasquils." 

The  commissioners  found  that  the  bursar  of  the  New  College  "  hes 
maid  na  compt,"  and  that  all  the  finance  was  disorderly.  Of  five 
Masters  of  Arts  who  should  have  lectured,  only  three  were  busy,  the 
other  two,  not  receiving  any  salaries,  "  refused  to  come."  Andrew 
Melville  lectured  daily  on  the  Psalms  in  Hebrew,  from  five  to  six  in 
the  morning,  Mr  John  Robertson  dealt  with  the  New  Testament  in 
Greek.  Patrick  Melville  lectured  in  Ecclesiastes.  A  Mr  Robert 
Hamilton  had  dilapidated  (or  embezzled)  the  scholarship  founded  by 
the  Laird  of  Moncrief.  (The  Scots  name  is  "bursarship,"  not  scholar- 
ship, and  a  bursar  is  not  a  bursar  in  the  Oxford  sense,  but  a  scholar.) 
At  St  Salvator's  the  Provost  treated  the  finances  with  a  free  hand,  and 
gave  in  no  accounts.  The  Provost  affirmed  that  he  lectured ;  the 
ministers  declared  that  he  did  not  lecture  once  a  month.  Mr  Wellwood 
averred  that  lie  lectured,  the  Provost  said  that  he  lied.  The  plague 
had  scattered  Mr  Cranstoun's  class,  so  he  taught  grammar  to  the 
Earl  of  Cassilis,  he  who  made  the  murderband  against  Mure  of 
Auchendrane.     The  physics  of  Aristotle  were  lectured  on  daily  in 


560  ST   ANDREWS   UNIVERSITY. 

Greek ;  the  first  class  read  Isocrates,  Aristotle,  and  Homer.  At 
St  Leonard's  abundance  of  Aristotle,  including  the  Ethics,  was  read, 
in  Greek,  one  hopes.  The  lecturers  disliked  teaching  grammar ; 
everywhere  they  wished  to  begin  with  a  form,  or  class,  and  conduct 
it  through  the  whole  course,  whereas  the  law  insisted  on  yearly  change 
of  masters. 

Further  examination  at  St  Mary's,  or  "  the  New  College,"  proved 
that  the  bursar  had  a  receipt  for  his  accounts,  which  he  was 
said  not  to  have  presented.  It  was  signed  by  James  Melville 
and  another,  Andrew  being  absent  through  troubles  with  the 
king.  But  as  to  the  receipt,  James  Melville  said  that  "  they 
were  forced  to  give  it,  .or  otherwise  the  house  would  have  been 
siai7/if,"  or  dispersed.  At  St  Salvator's  some  of  the  financial  docu- 
ments were  lost,  and  others  were  buried  "  in  ane  kist  under  the  erth, 
and  lang  thairefter  found  be  chance,  bot  that  the  evidentis  "  (the 
documents)  "  was  altogidder  consumed  thairin."  The  number  and 
complexity  of  quarrels  in  St  Salvator's  (where  the  Provost  declined 
to  recognise  the  lecturers  in  law  and  mathematics)  were  beyond 
belief  Scholars  were  elected  without  examination.  The  Provost 
averred  that  the  College  had  no  common  goods,  except  eighteen 
silver  spoons,  of  recent  make.  The  late  Mr  William  Cranstoun  had 
embezzled  ^10,000  of  common  property.  A  quarter  of  the  cloisters 
and  the  great  hall  were  ruinous.  In  short,  the  University,  except 
for  the  Melvilles  and  one  or  two  others,  was  a  den  of  thieves,  and 
college  meetings  must  have  been  lively. 

In  1597  a  new  commission  "put  at"  Andrew  Melville — unjustly, 
say  James  Melville  and  Dr  M'Crie.  Spottiswoode  takes  the 
opposite  view,  and  so  does  the  Blue  Book  of  the  period,  recorded 
in  the  third  volume  of  the  "-Commission  on  Scottish  Universities  "  of 
1837  (p.  197).  "  Mr  Andrew  Melville  found  by  voting  that  he  has 
not  performed  the  office  of  a  rector  in  the  administration  thereof,  to 
the  ruling  and  ordering  of  the  University."  He  had  not  conformed 
to  Act  of  Parhament  and  the  reformed  constitution.  A  new  con- 
stitution was  proclaimed.  Robert  RoUock  and  the  useful  Patrick 
Galloway,  with  Lennox  and  some  local  lairds  and  others,  were  in  the 
commission.  In  1597  Andrew  Melville  was  not  likely  to  get  fair 
play.  He  was  deprived  of  the  rectorship.  Mr  ^^' ell  wood,  a 
Melvillite,  was  also  ejected.  At  that  time,  as  in  Glasgow  still,  there 
were  examinations  upon  the  "black  stone."  A  seat  with  a  stone  in 
it  still  exists  at  Glasgow,  a  black  capping  stone  at  St  Andrews.      Is 


GODSCROFT   ON    MARY.  5^1 

this  a  relic  of  fetishism?  James  made  presents  of  books,  and  it 
was  thought  desirable  to  have  a  library  to  put  them  in.  St  Mary's 
was  in  ruins,  and  the  men  lived  in  lodgings  in  the  town.  On  the 
whole  the  University  of  St  Andrews,  though  frequented  by  mem- 
bers of  the  noblest  families,  was  disorderly,  ruinous,  impoverished, 
and  rent  by  quarrels  theological,  political,  and  personal.  This  was 
not  for  want  of  learning.  His  worst  enemies  did  not  contest  the 
erudition  of  Andrew  Melville,  and  gentle  King  Jamie  himself  had 
more  Greek  and  Latin  than  all  the  later  occupants  of  the  British 
throne  could  muster  among  them. 

But  the  nature  of  the  times  did  not  permit  the  quiet  necessary 
for  academic  life.  Melville  had  to  be  fighting  the  battle  of  freedom 
in  every  direction.  The  University,  like  the  State,  was  devoured  by 
feuds  political,  religious,  and  personal.  In  an  age  of  plunder  it  is 
clear  that  several  of  the  authorities  robbed  the  University,  a  practice 
which  survived  deep  into  the  nineteenth  century.  The  marvel  is 
that,  in  these  distracting  circumstances,  classical  learning  was  so 
infinitely  more  abundant  in  Scotland  than  it  is  at  the  present  day. 
If  Arran,  a  soldier  of  fortune,  had  not  only  Latin  but  Greek  in 
plenty,  it  is  no  marvel  that  men  of  less  tumultuous  lives  were  well 
read  in  the  classics. 

In  poetry  the  Latin  muse  attracted  the  Scots  much  more  than 
the  muse  of  the  vernacular.  Melville  was  a  considerable  poet  in 
Latin,  so  were  Sir  Thomas  Craig,  Sir  Robert  Ayton  (a  pleasing  writer 
of  English  verse),  Jonston,  Hercules  Rollock  (an  imposing  name  !), 
and  Hume  of  Godscroft,  the  historian  of  the  house  of  Douglas, 
a  Protestant  dealer  in  politics,  an  uncritical  historian,  but  a  very 
pleasant  character.  It  is  astonishing  that  Godscroft,  living  so  near 
the  time  of  the  events,  should  believe,  for  example,  that  after 
Riccio's  murder  Morton  returned  from  English  exile  before  the 
birth  of  James  VI.  No  reliance  can  be  placed  on  Godscroft  where 
"a  Douglas  or  a  Douglas's  man"  is  concerned.  But  how  amiably 
and  with  what  fairness  he  writes  on  Mary  Stuart : — "  Concerning 
that  princess,  my  heart  inclineth  more  to  pity.  I  see  good  qualities 
in  her,  and  love  them  ;  I  see  errors,  and  pity  them  ;  I  see  gentle- 
ness, courtesy,  humility,  beauty,  wisdom,  liberality — who  can  but 
affect  these  ?  If  they  be  carried  to  inconvenience  who  can  but 
lament  it?  In  thai  sex,  in  that  place,  in  that  education,  in  that 
company  ;  a  woman,  a  princess,  accustomed  to  pleasure,  to  have 
their  will,    by   religion,    by   sight,    by   example,    by   instigation,    by 

VOL.    II.  2  N 


562  NOTES. 

soothing,  and  approbation  !  Happy,  yea,  thrice  happy  are  they  who 
are  guided  through  these  rocks  without  touch,  nay,  without  ship- 
wreck." What  more  can  history  say  about  the  unhappy  queen  ? 
Darnley's  murder  is  "  that  fact  so  lamentable,  which  I  can  never 
remember  without  affliction." 

There  were,  doubtless,  many  gentlemen  like  Godscroft,  humane, 
learned,  and  gentle  ;  but  they  do  not  often  appear  among  the  political 
leaders  or  the  infamous  secondary  characters  of  the  political  drama. 
Of  the  Archibald  Douglases,  John  Colvilles,  and  Logans,  of  the 
spies,  and  traitors,  and  highhanded  ruffians  we  know  much,  but 
little  of  those  who,  in  an  age  of  perfidy  and  violence,  were  eminent 
for  benevolence  and  virtue.  How  the  distracted  Scotland,  torn 
by  family  feuds,  ungoverned,  unpoliced,  could  ever  have  reached  a 
milder  civilisation,  except  by  way  of  the  union  ol  the  Crowns  and 
English  influence,  does  not  appear. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    XXI. 

^  Pitcairn,  iii.  p.  622. 

2  Privy  Council  Register,  vi.  603. 

^  Spottiswoode,  iii.  289,  citing  Register  of  the  Privy  Seal,  Ixxviii.  ibog,  1610. 

*  Register  of  Privy  Council,  x.  pp.  642,  643. 

*  Privy  Council  Register,  x.  pp.  630-633. 

®  Privy  Council  Register,  vol.  vi.  pp.  856,  S57. 

7  Haddington  MSS. 

8  Haddington  MSS. 

^  Register  Privy  Council,  vol.  x.     Introduction,  p.  Ixxxvi. 

^^  Gordon  Papers.     .Spalding  Club  Miscellany. 

^^  Register  Privy  Council,  xii.,  pp.  v.-xiii. 

^2  Philotus,  1603,  Charteris,  Edinburgh,  and  Bannatyne  Club,  1835. 


563 


APPENDIX   A. 


THE    CASKET    LETTERS. 


The  letters  which  Mary  is  said  to  have  written  to  Bothwell,  before  Darnley's 
murder,  and  before  her  own  abduction,  were  the  only  direct  proof  which  her 
brother  and  (if  she  really  was  guilty)  her  accomplices  could  bring  against  her. 
When  Mary  surrendered  at  Carberry  (June  15,  1567),  and  when  the  Lords  had 
shut  her  up  in  Loch  Leven  Castle,  utterly  immured  from  the  world,  they  needed 
something  to  justify  their  conduct  in  the  eyes  of  Christian  princes.  What  they 
needed  they  got  with  almost  miraculous  promptitude.  On  June  19  a  servant  of 
Bothwell's,  named  George  Dalgleish,  was  sent  by  his  master  from  Dunbar  to 
Edinburgh  Castle.  Bothwell  had  stored  his  title-deeds  and  other  objects  of  value 
in  the  castle,  and  had  entrusted  the  command  of  the  fortress  to  his  creature  and 
accomplice,  Sir  James  Balfour,  an  elder  of  the  Kirk,  and,  of  old  (1547),  a  fellow- 
captive  of  Knox  in  France.  But,  even  before  Carberry,  Balfour  had  been  won 
over  from  the  cause  of  Bothwell  and  Mary  by  Lethington,  who  deserted  Mary's 
cause  just  after  she  had  saved  his  life  from  Bothwell.  On  the  arrival  of  Dalgleish 
to  remove  Bothwell's  property  from  the  castle,  information  was  sent  to  Morton, 
who  was  at  dinner  with  Lethington.  Then,  according  to  Morton's  sworn 
declaration,  search  was  made  for  Dalgleish  ;  he  was  found,  was  examined,  and, 
on  threat  of  torture,  gave  up  a  small  silver-gilt  coffer  or  casket,  bearing  the 
crown  and  cypher  (F,  in  the  new  "Italian"  hand)  of  Francis,  Mary's  first 
husband.  On  June  21  the  box  was  broken  open  in  the  presence  of  Morton, 
Lethington,  and  various  members  of  the  Privy  Council.  A  messenger,  George 
Douglas,  one  of  Riccio's  murderers,  was  at  once  sent  to  carry  a  letter  of  Lething- 
ton's  to  Cecil,  and  a  verbal  narrative  to  Robert  Melville,  then  representing  both 
Mary  and  her  opponents,  at  the  Court  of  Elizabeth. 

It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  verbal  message  was  a  report  on  the  contents  of 
the  silver  casket,  which,  on  June  21,  had  been  inspected  by  the  persons  who  opened 
it.  No  reference  is  made  to  the  subject  in  the  minutes  of  the  Privy  Council  of  June 
21,  and  no  inventory  of  the  contents  of  the  casket  was  made,  or,  at  all  events,  was 
produced.  We  have  only  Morton's  word  for  the  nature  and  number  of  the  papers 
found,  and  for  the  fact  that  he  preserved  them  without  adding  or  taking  away  any 
article.  At  a  later  date,  Randolph  (October  15,  1570)  avers  that  Lethington  and 
Balfour  opened  a  small  coffer,  "  covered  with  green  "  (cloth  or  velvet)  in  the  castle, 
and  removed  the  band  for  Darnley's  murder,  and  Drury  mentions  (in  October  28, 
1567)  the  same  abstraction.  This  was  done,  if  Randolph  is  right,  in  the  castle, 
before  the  casket  reached  the  hands  of  Morton,  supposing  it  to  be  the  same 
casket.     The  contents,  as  described  by  Morton,  and  as  exhibited  to  the  English 


564  APPENDIX   A. 

Commissioners  at  York  and  Westminster  in  1568,  were  ei^ht  unsigned  and 
undated  and  unaddressed  letters,  averred  to  be  from  Mary  to  Bothwell,  two 
marriage  contracts  between  them,  and  a  sequence  of  love  poems,  more  or  less  in 
the  form  of  the  sonnet.  The  Spanish  ambassador  in  London,  de  Silva,  heard 
from  the  French  ambassador  that,  in  June-July  1567,  copies  of  the  papers  were 
given  to  du  Croc  (the  French  envoy  with  Mary)  to  take  to  France.  Of  these,  no 
more  is  known  ;  they  have  not  been  found  in  French  archives,  nor  are  they  cited 
in  French  despatches.  When  versions  of  some  of  the  letters  were  published 
abroad  with  Buchanan's  'Detection'  (i  571-1573)  we  never  hear  that  the  French 
Government  made  any  allusion  to  the  copies  carried  in  July  1567  by  du  Croc. 
This  must  be  remembered  when  it  is  suggested  that,  in  1568,  a  letter  may  have 
been  shown,  which  differed  from  a  letter  alleged  to  have  existed  in  1567. 

In  July  1567,  Throckmorton,  then  in  Scotland,  was  informed  by  the  Lords  that 
they  had  evidence  of  Mary's  guilt  in  her  own  handwriting.  Again,  de  ^Iva,  the 
Spanish  ambassador,  in  July  1567,  elicited  from  Elizabeth  the  statement  that  she 
did  not  believe  in  the  letters,  and  that,  in  her  opinion,  "  Lethington  had  behaved 
badly  in  that  matter."  I  suspect  that  Robert  Melville,  who  was  much  attached 
to  Mary  (though  he  was  acting  for  the  Lords),  may  have  suggested  these  ideas  to 
Elizabeth,  on  the  first  receipt  of  the  news  about  the  casket.  It  is  plain  that  the 
Lords  had  really  discovered  the  casket  and  some  papers.  The  only  apparent 
opportunity  for  tampering  with  them  in  any  way,  before  they  were  seen  by 
Morton  on  June  21,  was  that  enjoyed  by  Sir  James  Balfour  and  Lethington,  while 
the  casket  was  still  in  the  castle.  Afterwards,  of  course,  the  Lords  could  do  as 
they  pleased,  till  May-June  1568,  when  Murray  sent  John  Wood,  with  Scots 
translations  of  the  letters,  to  Elizabeth.  Whether  she  and  Cecil,  or  others,  saw 
these  translations  does  not  appear  to  be  certain.  If  Cecil  and  Elizabeth  did  see 
these  Scots  translations,  in  the  summer  of  1568,  and  if  these  versions  varied  from 
those  later  produced,  the  reader  must  estimate  for  himself  the  chances  that  the 
English  Queen  and  her  minister  would  draw  attention  to  the  differences.  In 
December  1567  the  Scottish  Parliament  was  informed  that  the  Lords  possessed 
guilty  letters  of  Mary's  "written  and  subscribed  with  her  own  hand."  As  the 
extant  copies  of  the  letters  are  not  "subscribed  "  or  signed,  much  has  been  built 
on  this  point  by  Mary's  defenders.  In  the  Act  of  Parliament  the  phrase  "  signed  " 
or  "subscribed"  is  withdrawn.  The  point  is  not  worth  wrangling  about;  the 
former  statement,  that  the  letters  are  "subscribed,"  is  probably  a  mere  mis- 
description. There  was  no  difficulty  in  forging  Mary's  signature,  had  that  been 
thought  advisable  by  her  accusers.  It  is  not  absolutely  clear  that  the  letters  were 
inspected  in  this  Parliament.  We  might  gather  that  this  was  done  from  a  later 
protest  of  the  Lords  of  Mary's  party  (September  12,  1568).  They  speak  of  "her 
Majesty's  writing  produced  in  Parliament,"  and  then  go  on  to  say  that  no  "plain 
mention  "  of  Darnley's  murder  is  made  in  the  letters,  even  if  written  by  Mary's 
hand,  which  they  are  not.  Moreover,  "some  principal  and  substantial  clauses" 
have  been  garbled  by  the  accusers.  This  is  very  obscure.  The  letters  are  not  in 
Mary's  hand,  yet,  if  only  some  clauses  are  garbled,  the  substance,  though  not  in 
the  Queen's  hand,  is  apparently  admitted  to  be  of  her  composition.  The  argu- 
ment seems  to  be  that  the  accusers,  possessing  genuine  letters  of  Mary's,  have 
had  the  substance  copied  in  imitation  of  her  writing,  with  additions  and  altera- 
tions. The  Lords,  it  seems,-  could  only  assert  all  this,  if  they  had  seen  and  read 
the  letters,  in  Parliament.  If  they  did,  and  if,  when  the  letters  were  published  in 
1571-1573,  they  varied  from  the  letters  read  in  Parliament,  we  might  expect 
Mary's  friends  to  point  to  the  variations  as  a  proof  of  dishonest  usage.     We  do 


APPENDIX   A.  565 

not  find  that  this  was  done.  But  it  is  conceivable  that  the  protest  of  Mary's 
Lords,  in  September  1568,  was  worded  by  Lesley,  Bishop  of  Ross. 

Mary  had  denied  the  authorship  of  the  letters,  and  asserted  that  there  were  men 
and  women  in  Scotland,  "and  principally  such  as  are  in  company  with  themselves," 
who  could  counterfeit  her  hand.-'  Her  Lords  may  have  put  forth  their  plea  without 
having  inspected  the  letters  closely,  but  the  letters  were  certainly  produced  in 
Parliament,  whether  studied  there  or  not.  And  there  is  no  later  trace  of  any  hint, 
on  Mary's  side,  that  either  the  copies  given  to  du  Croc,  or  those  produced  in  Parlia- 
ment, were  not  identical  with  the  letters  afterwards  printed  and  published.  Lesley, 
or  any  other  pamphleteer  on  Mary's  side,  if  in  possession  of  copies  of  the  letters  as 
produced  in  Parliament  in  1567  (which  he  may  not  have  been),  ought  to  have 
insisted  on  any  changes  in  the  letters  as  later  published.  That  this  was  never 
done  is  a  powerful  though  perhaps  not  necessarily  a  conclusive  argument  against 
a  theory  now  to  be  mentioned.  There  are  traces  of  the  existence,  in  1567  and 
156S,  of  a  letter  attributed  to  Mary  by  her  enemies,  at  that  time,  but  never 
produced  by  them. 

This  curious  matter  stands  thus  :  Murray  was  in  France  at  the  time  of  the  dis- 
covery of  the  casket — ^June  20-21,  1567.  On  July  8,  1567,  Robert  Melville,  who 
had  returned  to  Scotland,  sent  one  John  a  Forret  to  Cecil.  John  is  to  go  on  to 
Murray,  and  a  packet  of  letters  for  Murray  is  to  be  forwarded  "with  the  greatest 
diligence  that  may  be."  It  once  occurred  to  me  that  John  a  Forret  might  be  John 
Wood,  a  great  ally  of  Murray,  but  more  probably  he  was  Forret  of  Forret  in  Fife- 
shire.  Murray  arrived  from  France  into  England  on  July  23.  He  saw  de  Silva, 
the  Spanish  ambassador,  who  on  August  2  wrote  to  Philip  of  Spain. ^  De  Silva 
says  that  Murray  told  him  something  that  he  had  not  told  even  "  this  Queen "' 
(Elizabeth).  Mary,  he  said,  was  certainly  cognisant  of  Darnley's  murder.  MuiTay 
then  cited  what,  he  declared,  he  had  heard  about  a  letter  of  Mary's  "from  a  man 
who  had  read  it."  Here  we  have  only  de  Silva's  report  of  Murra)''s  oral  version 
of  an  oral  account  of  a  letter  of  Mary,  as  given  by  a  man  who  "had  read  it." 
One  might  suppose  that  in  the  packet  of  letters  sent  to  Murray  from  Scotland, 'on 
July  9,  would  be  transcripts  of  the  Casket  Letters  opened  on  June  21.  To  send  to 
Murray  a  mere  oral  report  in  a  messenger's  memory  seems  a  strange  proceeding. 
However,  de  Silva's  account  of  Murray's  repetition  of  the  other  unnamed  man's 
version  of  a  letter  which  he  "had  read  "  exactly  answers,  in  essentials,  to  Lennox's 
account,  written  in  1568,  of  the  same  letter. 

It  is  not  likely  to  be  denied  that  Lennox,  in  1568  (say  July  or  August),  and 
Murray,  in  July  1567,  have  a  common  source  for  their  description  of  a  letter  never 
produced  against  Mary.  In  that  source,  Mary  is  represented  as  arranging  the 
explosion  at  Kirk  o'  Field  for  the  night  of  Bastian's  marriage.  She  is  made  to 
urge  the  "  dispatch"  of  Bothwell's  wife,  by  poison,  or  divorce.  In  both  versions, 
there  is  danger  that  Darnley's  "  fair  words  "  will  make  her  relent.  Murray  does, 
and  Lennox  does  not,  speak  of  a  design  to  poison  Darnley  at  a  house  between 
Glasgow  and  Edinburgh.  Lennox  does,  and  Murray  does  not,  make  Mary  say 
that  she  wishes  Bothwell  "  in  her  arms,"  a  phrase  which  occurs  in  Casket  Letter  ii. 
The  other  items  quoted  occur  in  no  Casket  Letter.  Whence  did  these  items 
come?  Possibly  Murray,  in  July  1567,  told  to  Lennox — but  more  copiously — 
what  he  had  told  to  de  Silva,  that  is  to  say,  a  report,  from  memory,  of  an  oral 
report,  from  memory,  by  a  man  who,  having  read  Casket  Letter  ii.,  made  divers 
fanciful  and  exaggerated  additions.  That  is  conceivable,  strange  as  it  may  seem 
that  the  Lords,  when  writing  to  Murray,  on  July  9,  1567,  did  not  send  transcripts 
of  the  Casket  Letters,  but  trusted  to  the  memory  of  a  messenger.     In  that  case. 


566  APPENDIX   A. 

Lennox,  in  Jwly  1567,  may  have  at  once  written  down  what  Murray  told  him, 
and  copied  it  out  in  a  document  of  a  year  later.  Lennox's  document  of  seven 
folio  pages  is  undated.  I  put  it  about  July  or  August  1568,  partly  because  it 
purports  to  be  an  mdictment  of  Mary's  conduct  towards  Darnley.  It  is  in  English, 
with  corrections  in  Lennox's  own  hand,  it  is  not  in  Scots.  It  is  the  first  of  a  series 
of  similar  documents,  of  which  the  last  was  read  by  Lennox  to  the  English  Com- 
missioners at  Westminster  in  December  1568.  It  may  be  urged  that  the 
document,  like  a  large  memorial  picture  of  Darnley's  murder,  painted  for  Lennox 
in  the  beginning  of  156S,  is  a  mere  record,  which  he  might  write  for  English 
readers  at  any  time  earlier  than  July- August  1568  ;  and  on  no  better  evidence  as 
to  the  letter  than  Murray's  oral  report. 

The  reply  to  this  is  that  Lennox's  long  document  contains  divers  strange 
"sayings  and  speeches"  of  Mary  to  her  closest  personal  attendants.  Now,  as 
late  as  June  1568,  Lennox  was  writing  to  ask  his  friends  to  collect  "the  sayings 
of  her  servants  and  their  reports."  When  he  wrote  the  long  paper  in  which  he 
cites  the  letters  attributed  to  Mary,  he  had  got  the  "sayings  and  speeches"  for 
which  he  was  writing,  from  Chiswick,  on  June  II,  1568.  Some  delay  must  have 
occurred  before  he  received  these  reports  from  Scotland,  because  the  letter  of  June 
II,  in  which  he  asks  for  them,  was  intercepted  by  Mary's  party,  and  now  occurs 
among  the  manuscripts  of  the  house  of  Hamilton.  It  follows  that  the  vast  paper 
in  which  Lennox  cites  the  letter  attributed  to  Mary  by  Murray,  but  never  pro- 
duced, cannot  be  earlier  than  July  1568.  Still,  it  may  be  said,  Lennox  may  be 
only  quoting  Murray's  verbal  communication  of  July  1567.  It  may  be  so,  but, 
even  by  June  11,  1568,  Lennox  was  in  company  with,  and  was  working  with, 
Murray's  agent,  John  Wood,  who  had  in  his  keeping  Scots  translations  of  the 
Casket  Letters.  In  writing  to  Scotland,  on  June  11,  1568,  Lennox  employed 
Wood,  or  his  secretary,  as  his  amanuensis.  This  is  clear,  for,  on  June  12,  Wood 
wrote  letters  to  Scotland  from  Greenwich,  and  those  letters  are  in  the  same  hand 
as  Lennox's  epistles  of  the  previous  day.''  Thus  we  see  that,  before  Lennox  wrote  his 
paper  of  seven  pages,  against  Mary,  in  which  he  cites  a  letter  attributed  to  iVIary,  but 
never  produced  against  her,  he  was  in  close  contact  and  collaboration  with  Wood, 
who  had  the  Scots  translations  of  the  Casket  Letters,  as  they  then  stood,  in  his 
possession.  Is  it  likely  that  he  did  not  communicate  their  contents  to  his  ally, 
Lennox,  the  father  of  Darnley?  If  he  did,  Lennox  quotes  a  letter  then  officially 
attributed  to  Mary,  a  letter  which,  though  of  essential  value  to  the  prosecutors,, 
was  later  dropped  by  them.  It  was  either  too  bold  a  forgery,  or  implicated  some 
of  the  guilty  men  who  became  Mary's  accusers. 

That  a  letter  attributed  to  Mary,  and  containing  matter  not  to  be  found  in  any 
of  the  Casket  Letters,  really  did  exist,  may  be  inferred,  not  only  from  the  citations 
of  Murray  and  Lennox,  but  from  the  '  Book  of  Articles.'  This  is  the  long  indictment 
of  Mary,  whereof  the  manuscript  is  now  in  the  British  Museum  :  it  was  published 
by  Mr  Hosack.  We  have  seen,  in  the  text,  that  no  endorsement  nor  authentication 
proves  this  document  to  contain  the  "articles"  produced  against  Mary  at  West- 
minster, in  December  1568.  It  is  an  arraignment  of  Mary  ;  it  is  in  an  official 
Scottish  hand  of  the  period,  recognised  by  Mr  Bain  as  that  of  Alexander  Hay,  clerk 
of  the  Privy  Council.  If  this  be  not  the  official  and  final  indictment  of  Mary,  no 
other  is  known  to  exist  (except  a  draft  in  the  Cambridge  MS.).  To  reject  the  Book 
of  Articles  as  dubious  and  unofficial  is,  perhaps,  to  show  a  scepticism  not  wholly 
unbiassed.  In  any  case  the  document  avers  that  Mary,  "from  Glasgow,  by  her 
letters  and  otherwise,  held  Bothwell  continually  in  remembrance  of  the  said  house," 
namely.  Kirk  o'  Field.     Now,  in  the  Casket  Letters,  Kirk  o'  Field  is  never  once 


APPENDIX   A.  567 

mentioned.  The  writer  says  that  she  is  bringing  Darnley  to  Craigmillar,  "  if  I  hear 
n«  other  matter  of  you  "  (Letter  i.  English  translation).  "  He  is  to  take  physic  at 
Craigmillar  "  (Letter  ii.  English  translation).  The  only  hint  that  might  be  regarded 
as  pointing  to  Kirk  o'  Field  is  "  of  the  ludgeing  in  Edinburgh,"  one  item  in  a  list 
which  is  found  in  the  Scots  but  not  in  the  English  version  of  Letter  ii.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  letter  described  by  Murray  and  Lennox  does  allude  to  "  the  house 
where  the  explosion  was  arranged,"  to  "  finishing  the  place  and  everything  as  they 
had  desired."  Now  the  writer  of  the  "Articles  "  had  Letter  ii.  before  him,  yet,  like 
Lennox  in  his  long  paper  of  seven  pages,  he  insists  that  Mary's  letter  kept  harping 
on  "  the  house  in  Edinburgh,"  which,  in  the  Casket  Letters,  she  does  not,  though, 
in  the  Murray- Lennox  version,  she  does.  Therefore  the  writer  of  the  "Articles" 
had  seen  a  Casket  Letter,  never  produced,  a  forgery. 

This  matter  of  a  letter,  cited  by  Murray  and  Lennox,  and  clearly  present  to  the 
mind  of  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Articles  (whether  that  be  final  and  official  or 
not),  is  an  example  of  the  delicately  balanced  problems  in  the  case.  Did  Murray 
and  Lennox  cite  a  forged  letter  ?  Did  they  merely  repeat,  at  a  long  interval,  the 
same  confused  and  exaggerated  oral  report  about  a  letter  ?  In  questions  like 
these,  disputants  will  vote  according  to  their  prepossessions,  or  will  reserve  their 
judgment.  The  letters  may  be  genuine  throughout,  but  nobody  who  has  watched 
the  conduct  of  Mary's  opponents  will  be  apt  to  deny  that  they  were  capable  of 
forging,  garbling,  and  suppressing  documents.  Some  topics,  causes  of  much 
ingenious  writing,  may  be  brushed  aside.  The  letters  produced  as  Mary's  were 
certainly  in  French,  and  not  in  the  French  of  the  versions  later  published  in 
France,  these  being  translations  from  the  Scots  versions,  or  from  the  Latin  versions 
of  the  Scots  versions.  This  is  proved  by  extant  copies  of  the  original  French  at 
Hatfield,  and  in  the  Record  Office. 

Again,  as  to  the  dates :  The  chronology  of  Letter  ii.  cannot  be  made  to  fit  with 
the  list  of  dates  and  events  in  the  paper  called  "  Cecil's  Diary."  But  it  is  always 
a  possible,  though  a  rather  desperate  argument,  that  "Cecil's  Diar}',"  or 
'Journal,'  is  not  official;  that  the  prosecutors  had  a  better  scheme  of  chronology — 
which  has  vanished  like  their  hypothetical  better  Book  of  Articles.  Moreover,  I 
have  elsewhere  worked  out  a  plausible  system  of  dates  for  Mary's  movements, 
into  which  the  Glasgow  letters  (i. ,  ii. )  easily  fit.  Again,  the  internal  chronology 
of  Letter  ii.,  written  on  two  nights,  is  dislocated.  But  this,  as  I  have  shown, 
may  be  easily  explained  if  we  suppose  Mary,  on  the  second  night,  to  have  written 
by  accident  on  the  clean  side  of  a  piece  of  paper,  whereof  the  verso  contained 
some  lines  written  on  the  previous  night,  but  left  standing  by  the  translators.* 

There  remains  the  difficulty  about  Crawford.  He  was  in  attendance  on 
Darnley  during  Mary's  visit  to  Glasgow.  On  December  9,  1568,  he  put  in, 
before  the  Commissioners  at  Westminster,  a  deposition,  done  into  English  out  of  a 
version  written  by  him  in  Scots.  It  contained,  first,  a  report  of  a  conversation 
between  Crawford  himself  and  the  Queen,  as  she  was  about  to  enter  Glasgow  ; 
next,  a  report  of  a  private  talk  between  Mary  and  Darnley.  This  talk  Darnley 
repeated  to  Crawford  at  the  time,  and  Crawford  swore  that  he  then,  at  the 
moment,  wrote  it  out  for  Lennox.  On  June  11,  156S,  Lennox  wrote  to  ask 
Crawford  for  x^ie.  first  part  of  this  deposition  (made  on  Dec.  9,  156S),  namely,  as 
to  the  talk  between  himself  and  I\Lary.  This  part  Crawford  in  January  1567  did 
not  write,  but  told  to  Lennox,  if  he  communicated  the  fact  at  all.  For  the  second 
part,  the  conversation  between  Mary  and  Darnley,  Lennox  did  not  ask.  The 
inference  is  that  Lennox  already  possessed  the  document  which  Crawford  swears 
to  having  made  "immediately  at  the  time,"  that  is,  about  January  25,  1567.     Now 


568  APPENDIX   A. 

Crawford's  accounts  of  the  two  conversations  are  so  verbally  identical  with  these 
which  Mary  is  made  to  give  to  Bothwell  in  Casket  Letter  ii.  that  Crawford's  and 
Mary's  versions  must  have  one  common  source.  Either  Crawford  borrowed  his 
facts  and  phrases  from  Letter  ii. ,  or  Letter  ii.  is,  so  far,  a  forgery  based  on  what 
Crawford  wrote  for  Lennox  in  January  1567,  and  on  what  he  wrote  in  answer  to 
Lennox's  inquiries  of  June  11,  156S.  What  he  then  wrote,  in  1568,  having 
probably  told  it  orally  to  Lennox  in  1567,  tallies  verbally  with  the  corresponding 
passage  at  the  opening  of  Letter  ii.  Therefore  it  seems  that  all  this  portion  of 
Letter  ii.  is  forged  on  the  model  of  Crawford's  statements.  If  Crawford  did  not 
deliberately  perjure  himself,  if  he  really  did  write  an  account  of  the  conversation 
between  Darnley  and  Mary  in  January  1567,  if  he  gave  it  to  Lennox,  for  whom  it 
was  written,  and  if  Lennox  kept  it  (we  have  seen  that  he  asked  for  nothing  of  this 
kind  when  collecting  information  in  June  1568),  then  Letter  ii.  contains  elements 
of  forgery.  The  two  Glasgow  letters  are  much  the  most  important.  What 
difficulties  obscure  our  view  of  them  we  have  made  apparent. 

Of  the  other  letters,  one  (iii.)  implicates  Mary  in  an  alleged  but  very  dim  attempt 
to  embroil  Darnley  with  her  brother  Robert.  Another  (iv. )  concerns  a  maid  about 
her  person,  who,  if  not  carefully  treated,  may  reveal  something.  Letters  v.,  vi.,  vii. 
were  written,  or  we  are  to  suppose  that  they  were  written,  in  April  21-23,  1567,  and 
bear  on  Bothwell's  abduction  of  Mary.  Of  these,  vi.  is  suspiciously  like  a  mere 
precis  of  a  long  excuse  of  Mary's  conduct,  written  in  Scots,  probably  by  Lething- 
ton,  and  sent  to  the  Bishop  of  Dunblane,  then  in  Paris,  in  May  1567.^  Letter  viii. 
fits  into  no  known  moment  in  Bothwell's  relations  with  Mary,  and  is  written  in  an 
affected  or  alembicated  style,  not  customary,  perhaps  unexampled,  in  her  epistles. 
On  the  side  of  the  authenticity  of  parts,  at  least,  of  the  letters,  is  the  tone  of 
humility  and  dependence  which  Mary  later  adopted,  in  her  letters  to  Norfolk, 
when  he  and  she  intended  to  marry.  The  expressions  of  remorse  and  loathing  of 
her  task,  in  Letter  ii.,  also  seem  almost  beyond  the  power  of  a  forger  to  conceive, 
but  many  critics  are  of  an  opposite  opinion.  Our  impressions  are  merely  sub- 
jective. As  to  the  sonnets,  it  is  not  easy  to  guess  when,  if  genuine,  they  were 
written.  To  an  English  reader  their  passion  appears  overpoweringly  natural  and 
unfeigned,  and  their  inartificial  laxity  and  roughness  may  be  the  result  of  rapid 
and  excited  composition.  On  the  other  hand,  a  French  critic.  Monsieur  de 
Wyzeva,  avers  that,  to  a  French  ear,  the  "tone"  is  not  French,  and  that  both 
sonnets  and  letters  are  the  work  of  a  person  who  thinks  in  English  (or  Scots)  ; 
also  that  this  "tone"  is  not  that  of  Mary's  genuine  writings  in  the  French 
language.  These  are  impressions  which  a  foreigner  cannot  criticise.®  As  to  the 
question  of  the  possibility  of  forging,  without  detection,  the  handwTiting  of  the 
Queen,  the  letters  were  never  submitted  to  experts — merely  to  a  throng  of  English 
Lords  in  the  course  of  a  short  winter  day.  In  the  case  of  the  Logan-Gowrie 
letters  (Appendix,  pp.  569-575),  we  find  such  an  extraordinary  example  of  skilled 
forgery,  by  a  rural  practitioner  in  a  small  way  of  business,  that  a  successful  imita- 
tion of  Mary's  large  Italian  hand  seems  well  within  the  resources  of  the  art. 
Examples  which,  probably,  would  deceive  any  modern  critic,  were  designed  by 
Mr  F.  Compton  Price,  and  are  published  in  the  author's  "Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart." 
It  seems  possible  that  even  if  the  original  Casket  Letters  were  to  be  discovered, 
and  compared  with  Mary's  authentic  handwriting,  we  might  come  no  nearer  to  a 
solution  of  the  problem  ;  though,  in  the  Logan  case,  the  forgery  is  detected. 

Here  we  must  leave  this  much  debated  question,  on  which  conviction  can 
hardly,  perhaps,  be  attained  by  a  perfectly  fair  and  unbiassed  student.  As  the 
evidence  stands,  the  letters  could  not  be  founded  on  by  a  jury  ;  and  the  author 


APPENDIX   B.  569 

himself,  while  unable  to  reject  the  testimony  of  all  the  circumstances  to  Mary's 
guilty  foreknowledge  of,  and  acquiescence  in,  the  crime  of  her  husband's  murder. 
cannot  entertain  any  certain  opinion  as  to  the  entire  or  partial  authenticity  of  the 
Casket  Letters.  Mary  was  never  allowed  to  see  the  originals.  Her  denials  were  per- 
sistent. Yet,  if  guilty,  therewas  no  reason  why  she  should  not  deny  much  more  openly, 
loudly,  and  pertinaciously,  above  all,  after  the  death  of  Paris,  the  alleged  bearer 
of  the  missives  (August  1569).  He  was  gone  ;  he  could  not  be  heard  ;  and  his 
confessions  were  not  produced  against  the  Queen,  but  were  deliberately  suppressed 
by  Cecil.  In  1582  Mary  was  declaring  the  letters  to  be  forgeries,  and  was 
anxious  to  procure  them.  Bowes,  too,  the  English  ambassador,  was  attempting 
to  obtain  the  letters  for  Elizabeth,  "for  the  secrecy  and  benefit  of  the  cause." 
Why  "secrecy"?  The  letters  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Earl  of  Cowrie  :  he 
would  not  give  them  up  ;  he  was  executed  for  treason  in  1584,  and  we  hear  no 
more  of  the  letters  and  the  casket.^  "  Secrecy,"  so  desirable,  may,  of  course,  here 
mean  secrecy  from  friends  of  Mary  who  were  anxious  to  destroy  the  letters.  But 
it  may  also  mean  that  the  more  they  were  known,  the  less  would  they  injure  Mary 
or  benefit  Elizabeth.  Thus,  to  every  inference  there  is  always  a  counter  inference, 
and  the  business  of  the  historian  is  to  state  each,  and  rely  on  neither  of  the 
alternatives. 

1  Goodall,  ii.  342,  343,  388,  389. 

-  Spanish  Calendar,  i.  p.  665. 

■*  See  abstracts  of  all  these  letters  in  Maitland  Club  Miscellany,  vol.  iv.  p.  119. 

*  Cf.  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart,  chap.  xiv. 

5  Labanoff,  ii.  pp.  32-44. 

6  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  1902. 

'  Bowes'  "Correspondence,"  pp.  236-265. 


APPENDIX   B. 


LOGAN    OF    RESTALRIG    AND    THE    GOWRIE    CONSPIRACY. 

On  or  about  April  19,  in  the  year  1608,  a  notary  of  Eyemouth,  named  George 
Sprot,  was  arrested.  Of  the  circumstances  we  only  hear  vaguely,  from  Calderwood 
and  Dr  Abbot,  later  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  that  Sprot  had  been  babbling 
about  his  knowledge  of  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy.  We  have  no  official  mention  of 
Sprot  till  July  5,  1608.  On  that  day  he  wrote  a  letter  of  confession  to  the  Earl 
of  Dunbar  (.Sir  George  Hume),  who  was  in  Scotland  on  the  business  of  the  Kirk. 
This  letter,  with  the  whole  of  the  documents  in  Sprot's  case  between  July  5  and 
August  12,  the  day  of  his  execution,  are  in  the  muniment  room  of  the  Earl  of 
Haddington,  and  have  remained  unknown  to  our  historians.^  The  ancestor  of 
Lord  Haddington,  in  1608,  was  Sir  Thomas  Hamilton,  King's  Advocate,  one  of 
the  Octavians  of  1596,  an  eminent  historical  scholar  and  collector  of  MSS.  As 
to  what  befell  the  imprisoned  Sprot  between  April  13  and  August  5,  we  know 
from  the  Haddington  .MSS.  that  he  had  lain  in  the  "  laigh  house"  or  dungeon  on 
the  basement  of  the  Tolbooth,  "a  loathsome  hole,"  that  he  had  often  been 
.examined,  and  that  he  had  declared  Logan  of  Restalrig  innocent  of  writing  certain 


570  APPENDIX    B. 

treasonable  letters,  apparently  in  his  hand,  which  were  found  on  Sprot's  person, 
among  his  papers,  or  were  given  up  by  Ninian  Chirnside  of  Whitsumlaws.  On 
July  5,  in  his  letter  to  Lord  Dunbar,  Sprot  maintains  that  Restalrig  was  in  the 
Gowrie  Conspiracy,  that  he  himself  had  a  guilty  knowledge  of  it,  but  that  he 
forged  the  Logan  letters  as  to  the  plot — that  is  to  say,  the  letters  then  in  the 
possession  of  the  Govern7>ient.  Sprot,  as  we  learn  from  Calderwood,  had,  at  first, 
admitted  the  genuineness  of  the  letters,  and  later,  under  torture,  had  declared 
them  to  be  forged.- 

The  peculiarity  of  this  passage  in  Calderwood  is  that  it  has  its  basis  in  a 
manuscript,  of  unknown  authorship,  now  in  the  Wodrow  MSS.  in  the  Advocates' 
Library  in  Edinburgh  (vol.  ix.  Rob.  iii.  2,  9).  The  later  historian  and  collector,  the 
Reverend  Mr  Wcjdrow,  who  lived  under  William  IIL,  Anne,  and  George  L,  has 
marked  this  as  "  MS.  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  from  1581-1641,  I  know 
not  by  whom."  It  is  not  in  Calderwood's  handwriting,  but  in  another  hand  of 
the  period,  and  is  a  kind  of  diary  of  events.  The  passage  referring  to  Sprot  is 
correctly  printed  in  Pitcairn,  ii.  275,  but  is  incorrectly  described  as  "a  curious 
fragment."'  "It  is  evidently  written,"  says  Mr  Pitcairn,  "by  some  one  who 
entertained  ideas  unfavourable  to  the  reality  of  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy."  On 
comparing  the  excerpt  (not  "fragment")  in  Pitcairn  with  the  passage  in  Calder- 
wood (vi.  pp.  778,  780),  it  becomes  certain  that  Calderwood's  source  was  the 
anonymous  manuscript  now  in  the  Advocates'  Library.  He  takes  whole  passages 
out  of  it,  with  a  few  verbal  changes  and  transpositions  of  sentences,  all  this  without 
acknowledgment.  But  when  he  arrives  at  the  description  of  the  hanging  of 
Sprot,  he  not  only  deserts  but  contradicts  his  authority,  introducing  new  matter 
of  his  own,  without  giving  his  sources  for  that.  Thus,  his  MS.  source,  the  MS. 
in  the  Wodrow  MSS.,  declares  that,  on  the  scaffold,  Sprot  "  maist  plainlie 
confessit,  that  he  had  nather  promise  of  lyf,  nather  rewaird  to  his  wyf  and  bairnis 
efter  his  deceas.  ..."  Calderwood  (who  must  have  read  this  in  the  MS.)  writes, 
"  Notwithstanding  Sprot's  confessions,  so  many  as  did  not  believe  before  were 
never  a  whit  the  more  persuaded,  partly  because  he  was  a  false  notary,  and  could 
counterfeit  so  finely  men's  hand  writs,  for  which  cause  he  was  worthy  of  death  ; 
partly  because  be?tejit  was  promised  to  his  wife  and  childrett  by  the  Earl  of  Dunbar, 
and  had  suffered  both  death  and  torments  as  a  false  notaiy." 

Calderwood  appears  to  myself  to  be  stating  these  circumstances,  not  as  facts, 
but  as  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  sceptics  who  had  to  excuse  their  disbelief 
in  a  dying  confession.  After  the  Gowrie  tragedy,  Mr  Robert  Bruce  had  professed 
himself  ready  to  believe  the  King's  account,  if  Henderson  were  hanged,  and 
adhered  to  his  statements  on  the  scaffold.  Now  Sprot  did  adhere  to  his,  but, 
not  wishing  to  believe  them,  resolute  Presbyterians  appear  to  have  alleged 
(l)  that  Sprot  really  suffered  as  a  forger  of  an  every-day  kind  ;  (2)  that  he  was 
induced,  by  promise  of  reward  to  his  wife  and  family,  and  as  he  had  to  die  in 
any  case,  to  make  a  false  confession,  on  the  scaffold,  of  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy. 
Calderwood  therefore  suppresses  the  statement  of  his  MS.  authority  that  Sprot 
denied  this  promise  of  reward,  on  the  scaffold.  This  denial  is  not  elsewhere  stated 
in  the  official  descriptions.  But  the  earlier  part  of  the  account  in  Calderwood's 
MS.  authority  is  also  absent  from  the  official  versions.  Tliat  part  Calderwood 
accepts,  and  reproduces  as  his  own  ;  what  does  not  suit  him,  in  the  same  MS. 
authority,  Calderwood  burkes  and  contradicts.  Moreover,  not  a  word,  in  the 
Haddington  MSS.  (which  are  private  and  candid),  hints  that  Sprot  was  arrested 
for,  or  examined  on,  or  condemned  for,  general  crimes  of  forgery.  He  was 
arrested  with  pseudo-Logan  papers  actually  in  his  "  pocquet,"  and  his  examina- 


APPENDIX   B.  571 

tions  turned  on  no  other  point.  So  much  for  Calderwood.  Mr  Barbe,  in  his 
"Tragedy  of  Gowrie  House"'  (125-131),  accepts  both  the  MS.  in  the  Advocates' 
Library  and  Calderwood's  account  of  "promise  of  benefit"  to  Sprot's  family, 
without  observing  that  Calderwood  cites  the  MS.  where  it  suits  him,  and  ignores 
and  contradicts  it — always  without  quoting  his  sources — where  it  does  not  suit 
him.  The  official  statements  about  Sprot's  evidence  are  falsified  and  garbled,  but 
Calderwood's  version,  when  analysed,  is  not  irreproachable.  But,  of  course,  he  is 
not  to  be  censured  severely.  It  was  then  unusual  to  cite  authorities,  and  he  may 
have  thought  that  his  information  was  better  than  that  of  his  author.  At  last, 
on  July  5,  and  in  subsequent  examinations,  Sprot  averred  that  the  letters  in 
possession  of  the  Council  were  impostures,  but  that  Logan's  share  in  the  plot,  and 
his  own  guilty  foreknowledge,  were  actual  facts. 

The  only  letters  in  the  case  hitherto  known  to  history  are  five  ;  the  originals 
were  found  by  Mr  Pitcairn,  in  the  Warrants  of  Parliament,  and  were  published 
by  him  in  the  second  volume  of  his  '  Criminal  Trials  in  Scotland.'  They  were  also 
copied  into  the  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Scottish  Parliament  of  November 
1609.  Of  these  five  letters,  dating  from  between  July  18  and  the  last  of  July 
1600,  Nos.  i.,  iii.,  and  v.  are,  to  one  or  more  unknown  persons,  addressed  as 
"Right  Honourable  Sir."  One(ii.  )is  to  James  or  "Laird"  Bower,  a  retainer 
of  Logan.  One  (iv.),  dated  July  29,  1600,  is  to  the  Earl  of  Gowrie.  These 
letters  indicate  frankly  that  Logan  and  his  correspondents  are  engaged  in  high 
treason.  Failure  means  death,  forfeiture,  and  extirpation  of  the  names  of  the 
associates.  The  scheme,  whatever  its  details,  is  based  (according  to  the  letters)) 
on  an  incident  which  occurred,  or  a  romance  which  was  in  circulation,  at  Padua, 
where  Gowrie  had  been  a  scholar  (1595-1598?).  These  five  letters  have  been 
accepted  as  authentic  beyond  doubt  by  Mr  Hill  Burton  and  Mr  Tytler,  though 
Mr  iNIark  Napier  and  others  proved  that  they  were  in  the  highest  degree 
suspicious.  The  confessions  of  Sprot,  in  the  Haddington  MSS.,  allege  that 
Letters  ii.,  iii.,  and  v.  are  forgeries,  while  i.  is  doulitful,  and  only  iv.  (Logan  to 
Gowrie,  July  29,  1600)  is  admitted  by  him  as  genuine,  and  as  his  model  for  the 
fraudulent  imitations.  That  even  one  letter  was  admitted  to  be  genuine,  Calder- 
wood did  not  know.  If  accepted.  Letter  iv.  suffices  to  establish  the  guilt  both  of 
Gowrie  and  Logan,  but,  as  we  have  it,  letter  iv.  is  a  forgery,  whether  the 
substance  be  copied  from  a  real  letter  by  Logan  or  not. 

The  reason  why  Sprot  forged  the  three  certainly  fraudulent  letters,  and  a 
number  of  others  never  publicly  produced,  was  a  purpose  of  extortion.  After 
1600,  Logan  of  Restalrig  sold  all  his  estates,  although  the  records  of  "hornings" 
for  debt,  in  the  "  Register  of  the  Privy  Council,"  never  show  that  he  was  pressed  by 
creditors.  Already,  in  1596,  he  had  sold  his  estate  of  Lower  Gogar.  This- 
haste  to  get  rid  of  landed  property  after  1600  must  have  aroused  the  suspicion 
that  Logan  feared  forfeiture,  in  consequence  of  some  treasonable  enterprise  ;  and 
that,  probably,  the  Gowrie  afiair.  Logan  was  of  ancient  family  ;  he  was  of  royal 
descent  ;  his  lands  were  Restalrig,  near  Leith,  Flemingtoun  (with  a  house, 
Gunnisgreen,  near  Eyemouth),  and  Fastcastle,  a  fortress  of  great  strength,  on  a 
perpendicular  cliff  of  the  Berwickshire  coast,  above  the  northern  sea.  The 
possession  of  this  impregnable  fortalice,  in  a  region  still  roadless,  made  Logan  a 
useful  ally  in  a  conspiracy.  His  life  had  been  passed  in  conspiracies.  A  half- 
brother  of  Lord  Hume,  a  cousin  of  the  Master  of  Gray,  and  of  the  Ogilvys  and 
Sinclairs,  a  friend  of  the  famiiy  of  Cowrie's  Mr  Thomas  Cranstoun,  Logan 
belonged  to  the  clique  of  Archibald  Douglas,  and  the  other  Whittingham  Douglases, 
the  Laird  of  Spot,  John  Colville,  Ninian  Chirnside,  and  all  the  southern  partisans 


572  APPENDIX   B. 

of  the  adventurous  Francis  Stewart,  Earl  of  Bothwell.  In  1586  Logan  was  one 
of  the  packed  jury  which  shamefully  acquitted  Archibald  Douglas  of  a  part  in 
Darnley's  murder.  In  1 592- 1 594,  when  Bothwell  was  chasing  the  King  like  a 
partridge  on  the  mountains,  Logan  was  his  abettor,  probably  harboured  him  at 
Fastcastle,  and  was  denounced  rebel  for  his  pains.  When  Bothwell  joined  the 
Catholics,  and  deserted  the  Kirk,  Logan  did  not  abandon  the  renegade,  but 
associated  with  and  harboured  George  Ker  (of  the  Spanish  Blanks),  and  the 
Jesuit,  Father  Andrew  Clerk.  In  1599  he  was  charged  not  to  yield  Fastcastle 
to  the  King's  rebels  or  enemies,  and  in  1599  Cecil  was  inquiring  of  Lord 
Willoughby,  at  Berwick,  as  to  his  character  and  position.  Logan  had  been  a 
pirate  ;  a  Queen's  man  in  the  castle  during  the  last  agony  of  Mary's  party  ;  an 
associate  of  Cowrie's  after  the  raid  of  Ruthven  ;  a  spy  of  Walsingham's(i5S6-i5S7) ; 
an  accomplice  of  all  the  perfidious  Douglases  of  Spot  and  Whittingham,  and 
Mowbrays  of  Barnbogle  ;  and,  as  we  saw,  an  ally  of  Bothwell  when  Bothwell 
was  an  ally  of  Atholl,  and  of  the  Cowrie  of  the  Cowrie  tragedy.  He  was  also 
li^  with  Lord  Willoughby  and  Sir  John  Guevara  at  Berwick,  the  kidnappers  of 
Richard  Ashfield  (1599). 

With  this  record,  it  may  be  judged  whether  Logan  was  an  unlikely  man  to  be  a 
conspirator.  He  was  a  neighbour  to  Cowrie's  castle  at  Dirleton,  close  to  the  sea, 
near  North  Berwick,  and  within  a  short  sail  of  Fastcastle.  The  lands  of  Dirleton 
(according  to  Sprot)  were  to  be  Logan's  if  the  conspiracy  succeeded.  When  we 
remember  that,  in  April  1600,  Nicholson  had  announced  to  Cecil  that  a  plot  by 
Archibald  Douglas,  the  Laird  of  Spot,  and  John  Colville  was  in  hand  ;  when  we 
add  that  Colville  and  Cowrie  were  both  in  Paris  in  the  early  spring  of  1600, 
while  Bothwell  was  reported  to  have  arrived  secretly  and  to  be  skulking  in 
Scotland,  it  may  be  granted  that  Logan  was  apt  to  be  concerned  in  whatever 
enterprises  of  a  treasonable  nature  were  on  foot.  The  Cowrie  conspiracy  failed  ; 
Logan  sold  his  lands  (this  is  certain),  and  went  partners  with  Lord  Willoughby  in 
a  ship,  wherein,  Sprot  says,  he  meant  to  sail  to  "the  Indies."  By  1605  Logan 
had  sold  all  and  was  a  landless  man.  Lord  Balmerino  and  Lord  Dunbar,  the 
purchasers  of  his  estates,  owed  him  33,000  marks  on  the  price.  In  September 
1605  Logan  went  to  London  to  try  to  get  his  money,  in  which  he  failed.  He 
then  visited  France,  returned  in  1606,  to  find  Bower,  his  trusted  old  servant,  dead  ; 
and  he  died  himself  in  Edinburgh  in  July  1606.  His  elder  children,  by  his  first 
and  second  marriages,  refused  to  "give  up  the  inventory"  of  his  estate.  His  heir 
was  a  girl,  of  about  four  or  five  years  of  age,  born  of  his  last  marriage,  and  the 
main  part  of  her  property  was  the  money  owed  to  her  by  Dunbar  and  by 
Balmerino,  v^^ho,  in  160S,  fell  from  power,  and  was  a  dying  prisoner. 

In  these  circumstances,  the  propriety  of  robbing  the  orphan  was  conspicuous  to 
all.  Sprot  not  only  destroyed  the  acknowledgments  of  debt  to  Logan's  heiress 
by  one  Heddilstane  and  by  Ninian  Chirnside  (Logan's  most  intimate  friend,  and 
a  trusted  retainer  of  Bothwell),  but  he  forged  the  Logan  plot  letters,  ii. ,  iii.,  v., 
and  perhaps  i.,  and  a  number  of  other  compromising  papers  and  letters,  in  an 
imitation  of  Logan's  hand.  These  forgeries  Sprot  sold  to  Heddilstane,  Ninian 
Chirnside,  the  Goodman  of  Rentoun  (Home),  and  others.  They  were  to  exhibit  the 
forged  documents  as  genuine  to  Logan's  executors,  and  so  terrify  them  into  forgiving 
the  debts  owed  by  Logan's  surviving  friends  to  his  daughter.  The  whole  of  the 
dead  Logan's  possessions  would  be  forfeited  if  his  connection  with  the  Cowrie  plot 
came  to  light,  and  thus  the  forged  papers  were  much  coveted  by  Logan's  friends 
and  debtors,  and  were  a  source  of  revenue  to  Sprot.  This  branch  of  the  notary's 
business  was,  of  course,  destroyed  by  his  arrest  in  April  1608.     In  July,  Dunbar, 


APPENDIX   B.  573 

says  Calderwood,  following  his  MS.  authority,  came  to  Scotland,  "and  caused 
take  the  said  George  Sprot  out  of  ward,  and  cure  his  legs,  bruised  with  the  boots." 
Sprot  now,  on  July  5  and  later,  confessed  that  the  plot  was  a  genuine  plot,  that 
Logan  was  engaged  in  it,  that  he  himself  had  guilty  foreknowledge,  announced 
that  he  knew  he  must  die,  and  deserved  to  die,  but  maintained  that  the  plot- 
letters  and  other  compromising  papers,  then  before  the  Privy  Council,  were  all 
forgeries.  His  own  words  are,  "  I  confess  to  my  own  shame  and  God's  glory,  I 
formed  and  framed  them  all  to  the  true  meaning  and  purpose  of  the  letter  that 
Bower  let  me  see "  (Cowrie's  first  letter,  merely  asking  for  an  interview  with 
Logan),  "to  make  the  matter  the  more  clear  by  these  arguments  and  circum- 
stances, for  the  cause  I  shewed  to  the  Lords,"  that  is,  for  purposes  of  extortion. 
The  letter  of  Gowrie  had  been  shown  by  Bower  to  Sprot  "with  a  direction  that 
he  got  from  the  Laird  to  come  to  him  in  haste  for  to  ride  in  his  commission  to  the 
Earl  of  Gowrie  concerning  the  lands  of  Dirleton"  (Logan's  reward),  "which 
direction  to  Bower  is  among  the  rest  of  the  letters  produced."  Thus,  on  July  5, 
Sprot  confessed  that  Cowrie's  harmless  first  letter  to  Logan  was  his  source,  but  he 
obviously  includes  what  he  says  he  knew  of  Logan's  hope  of  getting  the  lands  of 
Dirleton. 

The  letter  about  them  (ii.)  Sprot  almost  certainly  forged,  on  oral  information 
from  Bower.  But,  as  certainly,  Sprot,  in  the  recorded  confessions,  never 
mentions  Letter  iv.,  from  Logan  to  Gowrie,  till  August  10.  Under  examina- 
tion, Sprot  cited  the  first  letter  of  Gowrie  to  Logan  (July  6,  1600),  in  which 
Gowrie  says  that  Logan  understands  his  purposes,  and  asks  for  an  interview. 
Sprot  cited  various  witnesses  to  corroborate  some  of  his  statements,  but  they 
all,  very  naturally,  refused  to  corroborate,  and  Chirnside,  with  others,  was  long 
"warded"  in  prison.  So  far,  the  Privy  Council  had  no  valid  evidence  before 
it ;  only  rumour,  Sprot's  word,  contested  and  often  demonstrably  false,  and  the 
letters  and  papers  which  were  confessed  forgeries.  On  August  9  Sprot  was  told 
that  he  must  die,  and  that  he  should  see  the  faces  of  the  Lords  no  more.  He 
repeated  that  his  confessions,  since  July  5,  were  true,  and,  in  his  own  hand,  sub- 
scribed the  record  of  his  confession  "in  the  presence  of  God  and  his  messengers, 
auditors  hereof."  The  messengers  of  God  were  the  Bishop  of  Ross,  with  the 
King's  preacher,  Mr  Galloway,  and  Messrs  Hall  and  Hewat,  ministers  of  Edin- 
burgh. Sprot  was  to  see  the  Lords  no  more,  hut  he  must  have  sent  to  let  them 
know  that  he  had  more  to  divulge.  On  the  loth  of  August  the  Lords  and  ministers 
visited  him  again,  and,  after  a  prayer  made  by  Mr  Galloway,  he  was  asked, 
"  Where  is  that  letter  which  Restalrig  zvrote  to  the  Earl  of  Gowrie,  whereupon  the 
said  George  Sprot  7vrote  and  formed  the  missives  produced?"  This  must  refer  to 
some  unrecorded  statement  just  made  by  Sprot,  for  this  letter,  the  now  confessed 
model  of  Sprot's  forgeries,  has  never  hitherto  been  mentioned.  In  his  written 
confession  of  July  5,  he  said  that  he  forged  the  papers  "to  the  true  meaning  and 
purpose  of  the  letter  that  Bower  let  me  see,"  meaning  either  Cowrie's  first  and  not 
compromising  letter,  or  Logan's  letter  to  Bower,  or  both  (No.  ii.).  Never 
before  August  10  has  Sprot  mentioned  a  letter  of  Logan  to  Gowrie,  as 
known  to  him,  or  as  his  model.  That  letter  is  a  new  feature  in  the  case,  and, 
on  August  10,  was  not  in  possession  of  the  Council. 

Sprot  was  asked  point-blank,  after  ]\Ir  Galloway's  prayer,  where  the  letter  was 
now.  He  first  gave  an  account  of  how  he  found  it,  unfinished,  behind  a  bench  and 
the  wall,  at  Fastcastle.  He  must  have  meant  Gunnisgreen,  for  the  letter  bears 
that  date,  unless,  as  Logan  (in  Letter  iv. )  says  that  he  wrote  it  "  on  two  sundry  idle 
days,"  he  began  it  at  Fastcastle,  and  finished  it,  and,  at  the  end,  dated  it,  from 


574  APPENDIX   B. 

Gunnisgreen.  But  Gunnisgreen  was  quite  close  to  Eyemouth,  where  Sprot  lived, 
and  he  is  unlikely  to  have  been  at  Fastcastle.  Sprot  went  on  to  say  that,  months 
after  the  conspiracy,  Logan  bade  Bower,  who  kept  all  his  papers,  find  and  bring  him 
this  letter,  which  had  been  returned  by  Gowrie,  through  Bower,  according  to 
their  method  of  correspondence.  Bower,  who  could  not  read,  asked  Sprot  to  help 
him  to  find  the  letter.  Sprot  found  it,  told  Bower  that  he  could  not  find  it,  and 
carried  it  off  till  on  this  Letter  iv. ,  as  a  model,  he  forged  all  the  rest.  Now  this  is 
so  far  true  :  any  reader  of  Letters  iii.,  v.,  and  a  torn  letter  in  the  Haddington  MSS. 
must  see  that  they  are  all  mere  copies  of  Letter  iv.  Except  in  what  personally 
applies  to  Gowrie,  Letters  iii.,  v.,  and  the  torn  letter  say  nothing  that  is  not  in 
Letter  iv.  The  case  of  Letter  i.  is  dubious,  for  reasons  too  minute  to  be  dis- 
cussed here.  Sprot  now  quoted  Letter  iv.  (Logan  to  Gowrie),  from  memory, 
recognisably,  but  not  correctly.  Asked  if  he  was  at  last  speaking  the  truth,  as  a 
man  under  the  very  shadow  of  death,  Sprot  vowed  to  God  that  he  was.  Again 
required  to  say  where  the  letter  now  was,  he  said  that  "he  believes  it  is  in  his 
kist"  (chest),  sealed  ("closed"),  "and  folded  in  a  piece  of  paper."  Search  must  have 
been  instantly  made  at  Eyemouth  for  this  letter,  which  was  probably  in  a  secret 
compartment  of  Sprot's  "kist."  On  August  il,  at  a  certain  hour,  the  Council 
had  neither  the  letter  nor  a  copy  of  it,  for  Sprot  now  recollected,  almost  correctly, 
a- passage  which  he  thought  was  in  a  postscript.  This  he  would  not  have  done 
had  the  letter,  or  a  copy  of  it,  been  access\ble,  for  really,  the  passage  is  in  the  body 
of  the  Letter  iv.  Sprot  was  to  die,  and  did  die  on  August  12.  At  a  certain  hour 
on  August  II  the  letter  had  not  yet  arrived,  for,  by  racking  his  memory,  he 
recovered,  though  incorrectly,  more  of  its  contents.  But  before  he  was  hanged, 
Sprot  endorsed,  in  his  own  ordinary  hand,  a  copy  in  his  "course"  or  cuiTent 
hand,  of  Letter  iv.,  and  another  of  Letter  i.  Now  Lord  Cromarty,  writing  in 
1713,  at  the  age  of  eighty-three,  tells  us  that  the  Sheriff-depute  was  instructed  to 
search  for  this  letter  (iv. ),  that  he  found  it,  and  that  he  gave  it  to  Sir  Thomas 
Hamilton.  The  copy,  endorsed  by  Sprot,  a  copy  not  before  the  Council  at  a 
certain  hour  of  August  il,  was  doubtless  found  with  the  alleged  original  (in 
Logan's  hand  or  an  imitation  of  it)  of  Letter  iv.  This  endorsed  copy  is  still  in 
the  papers  left  by  Sir  Thomas  Hamilton. 

Thus  Letter  iv.,  unlike  the  rest,  is  alleged  by  Sprot  to  be  genuine,  and  the 
model  (as  it  undeniably  is)  of  his  forgeries.  In  my  opinion,  Letter  iv.  is,  at  least 
in  substance,  genuine,  and  it  suffices ^to  prove  Logan's  acquiescence  in  Cowrie's 
plot.  The  reader  who  is  in  doubt  may  read  the  letters  and  form  his  own  opinion. 
It  does  not  follow,  if  the  substance  of  Letter  iv.  be  genuine,  that  the  handwriting 
is  Logan's.  It  is  certainly  not  Logan's,  but  the  hand  of  Sprot,  counterfeiting  that  of 
the  Laird  of  Restalrig.  Sprot's  confession  of  August  10  is  that,  after  surreptitiously 
reading  the  first  part  of  Logan's  unfinished  letter  to  Gowrie,  and  after,  later,  seeing 
Cowrie's  first  harmless  letter,  he  put  two  and  two  together,  and  conceived  suspicions. 
He  later  stole  Logan's  letter  to  Gowrie  (iv.),  "  which  letter  he  retained  ////  he  framed 
three  new  letters  upon  it."  He  may  have  then  returned  the  genuine  Letter  iv.  to 
Bower,  as  if  he  had  found  it  in  a  new  search  among  the  papers,  after  he  had 
copied  it,  in  a  forgery  of  Logan's  hand.  That  copy  may  be  our  Letter  iv. ,  genuine 
in  substance,  but  not  in  handwriting.  This  theory  would  account  for  the  firmness 
of  the  writing,  the  slip  in  spelling  "  protection,"  and  so  on.  The  sul^stance  of  the 
letter,  from  internal  evidence,  I  believe  to  be  Logan's,  but  this  is  a  matter  of 
opinion. 

On  August  12  Sprot  was  hanged,  after  confessing  his  guilt  from  every  corner 
of  the  scaffold,   and  singing  a  psalm.      This  dying  confession  of  his  own,  of 


APPENDIX   B.  575 

Logan's,  and  of  Gowrie's  guilt  (in  which  nothing  about  the  letters  is  reported)  was 
trying  to  Presbyterian  sceptics.  They  were  wont  to  say  that  they  would  believe 
in  a  dying  confession.  But  it  did  not  suit  them  to  believe  in  Sprot's,  and  Calder- 
wood  treated  the  case  in  the  way  we  have  explained. 

But  Archbishop  vSpottiswoode,  who  was  present  at  'S^-^xo'Ci  public  trial  on  August 
12,  and  at  his  death,  believed  him  to  be  an  hysterical  self-accuser.'^  The  man 
never  showed  the  letter,  says  Spottiswoode.  He  did,  but  Spottiswoode  was  kept 
in  the  dark.  Government,  in  the  indictment  of  Sprot,  and  in  a  tract  officially 
published  (both  are  in  Pitcairn),  said  not  a  word  about  any  letters  being  produced. 
They  garbled  and  falsified  the  facts,  they  cited  Gowrie's  first  letter  (never  found 
at  all),  and  Logan's  letter  to  Gowrie  (iv. ),  as  quoted  by  Sprot /w;«  memory. 

In  June  1609,  the  dead  body  of  Logan  was  tried,  before  the  Lords  of  the 
Articles,  for  treason.  The  Lords,  who  were  sceptical  at  first,  convicted  the  dead 
man.  They  were  converted  to  a  belief  in  his  guilt,  when  the  prosecution  pro- 
duced the  Five  Letters,  of  which  Sprot  had  confessed  that  three,  or  perhaps  four, 
were  forgeries,  Letter  iv.  alone  being  genuine.  Seven  honourable  witnesses,  who 
knew  Logan  well,  produced  real  letters  of  his,  and  compared  them  with  the  Five 
Letters,  in  which  no  difference  of  handwriting  or  of  spelling  could  be  detected. 
The  case  is  precisely  similar  to  the  Hampton  Court  comparison  of  Queen  Mary's 
letters  with  the  Casket  Letters.  By  virtue  of  this  conviction  Logan's  heirs  lost 
all  their  inheritance,  and  Lord  Dunbar  was  not  obliged  to  pay  the  18,000  marks 
which  he  owed  to  Logan's  estate.  All  the  documents  of  the  trials,  as  officially 
piiblished,  are  in  Pitcairn,  vol.  ii.  pp.  256-293.  On  these  transactions,  so  long 
concealed,  it  is  needless  to  offer  any  cummentary. 

As  to  the  guilt  of  Logan  with  Gcwrie,  ths  evidence  of  Sprot  is  tainted,  and  not 
fit,  in  daily  life,  to  go  to  a  jrry.  After  July  5  he  lied  variously  to  conceal  his 
possession  of  our  Letter  iv.  He  coafersed  to  it  when  death  was  absolutely  certain. 
Vet  that  long-concealed  letter,  as  it  stands,  is  pronounced  by  experts  to  be  as 
much  a  forgery  as  the  others.  How  is  the  conduct  of  Sprot  to  be  explained  ? 
He  confessed  to  the  plot,  and  to  his  guilty  knowledge,  which  carried  his  doom. 
Government  was  sure  to  hang  him,  not  so  much  for  the  crime,  as  to  present  a 
dying  confession  to  the  godly  sceptics.  But  why  did  Sprot  admit  that  he  had  forged 
the  letters?  If  he  had  any  faint  hope  of  life,  his  chance  lay  in  giving  the  Govern- 
ment documentary  evidence.  This  he  refused.  And  why  did  he  keep  back 
Letter  iv.  till  death  was  absolutely  certain?  Why  did  he  then  give  it  up,  and 
aver  that  it  was  genuine,  whereas  modern  experts  condemn  it  with  the  rest  ?  A 
study  of  the  Haddington  MSS.  leads  me  to  the  opinion  that  Logan  was  really  in 
the  plot,  and  the  internal  evidence,  the  contents  of  Letter  iv.,  confirm  that  belief. 
But  all  this  is  opinion,  not  knowledge. 

1  A   brief  abstract   is   given   in  Sir  William  Frazer's  Memorials  of  the  Earls  of 
Haddington,  vol.  i.  1889. 
"  Calderwood,  vi.  p.  779,  bis  (779  is  printed  twice  by  error). 
3  Spottiswoode,  iii.  pp.  199-200. 


END    OF    THE    SECOND    VOLUME. 


PRINTED    BV   WILLIAM    BLuCKWOOD    AXD   SON'S. 


^ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


941 


